Why does Veeky Forums dislike analytic philosophy so much? No memes please

sterile, boring

this is why the *tips* meme was invented

t.butthurt christfaggot who has never opened a book on analytic philosophy of religion

Ah

Because Veeky Forums is full of brainlets.

They're easy to impress

I don't dislike it, I just wholeheartedly disagree with just about all of its proponents and arguments that I've encountered.

it's boooooooooring and doesn't impress anyone

dailynous.com/2017/10/23/analytic-philosophy-egalitarianism-standpoint-epistemology-privileging/

Analytical philosophy offers a lot to Christians, some of the most important names in it were or are devout Catholics, Peter Geach, Elizabeth Amscombe and Alsadair MacIntyre to name a few.

like what

A L V I N P L A N T I N G A

Because the wiki pages on analytic philosophy don't explain ideas well.

because analytic philosophy is for people who actually care about untangling philosophical problems. It requires a lot of patience and it may not be worth everyone's time to spend a few hours reading twenty pages on the difference between words without quotes and words with them. Continental philosophy is plainly just more fun to read and is about what it is like to exist rather than just analyzing concepts. I personally enjoy reading both

>I personally enjoy reading both
Same, it's a shame that most Veeky Forumsizens are part of the "just get a library card and read all the original texts dude :)" group

I know! But dismissing of anphil in this board seems to come mostly from ignorant christians who equate it with scientism or positivism

Am I supposed to read this or you're just trying to show that analytic phil is bad because muh feminists?

You're being a tad naive, OP. Most of the people here have no contact whatsoever with modern anphil and barely know what the field is about. Not to mention that aside from a vocal minority most haven't even read much continental beyond Camus/Kierkegaard/Nietzsche. It's basically just parroting memes and baiting for (you)s.

I know, it was just curious about the bullshit arguments people were willing to pull out of their ass to justify their opinions lol

I don't think I've noticed the equating, even if a lot of it is more or less positivist and in analytical philosophy threads it's not exactly easy to tell who is what type, if at all, of Christian.

This.

My problem with analytical philosophy is that it no longer deals with day-to-day human existence on a level that is applicable in everyday life. If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.

Continental philosophy is the continuation of the Greek tradition of trying to figure out what makes us feel a certain way, what makes us miserable in order to better to human condition.

Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature, so everything around us -humanity included - can be understanded in an axiomatic system.

The problem comes from the rigidity of such logical structures, not to mention that in order to do this they have to reduce the 'human condition' to an automaton (see also the fallacy of the rational being, homo economicus etc) that does a great disservice to life. Also - just as in math- these logical structures can run into paradoxes but are unable to deal with them within the framework of the initial axioms (see Godel's theorem.

I have a masters in a math-heavy field so I personally enjoy reading analytical papers but they are so far removed from everyday existence that they are rightfully labeled as navel gazing in my opinion, they offer no help on how to do things better in your life or understand the world around you.

I get why the continental school gets a bad rep, especially on Veeky Forums, because every pseud and edgelord who ever saw a quotation from Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dostoevskythinks he is the next incarnation of the Ubermensch, and frankly a good portion of Veeky Forumsizens qualify for this.

welcome to the anglosphere bitch

Because most of the userbase here doesn't actually read and as such have uncritically swallowed a litany of myths as to what analytic philosophy is. They fear the positivist bogeyman and have abused the word to the point of meaningless.

Very little analytic philosophy after the 50s is positivist.

>If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.

And the uninformed opinion of the masses matters because? Why should the subject matter of philosophy be confined to one range of human interest? Why shouldn't its goal be the comprehension of nature and the pursuit of leisurely habits?

the second, duh

>nd the uninformed opinion of the masses matters because?
Helps you understand that you might not denote the same meaning to the same word as others due to different traditions.

>Why should the subject matter of philosophy be confined to one range of human interest?
This is unintelligible. Every discipline deals with human interest. We are humans.

>Why shouldn't its goal be the comprehension of nature and the pursuit of leisurely habits?
The comprehension of nature is the goal of every scientific discipline. If you mean by this that why can it make you feel good, that's what /tv/ is for or a good novel.

Philosophy is a discipline, you can do it part-time as a hobby but if you do it to make yourself feel better about yourself - than you are not learning you are procrastinating. A sied effect can be that you feel good, but it is not the goal of the discipline.

>thinking this is philoshophy

>greek letters and logical operators are scary
OP said no memeing.

For all the mindless memeing there is a big kernel of truth in the general dislike of anphil. It set out to resolve the eternal questions in its own way and failed. Had it not been for the immense arrogance of people like Russell with his "Big Book of Reeing about Things I Don't Like" or Witty with the "Language is Like Not a Precise Tool Mkay My Man" we might not have seen this backlash. Presently there isn't even any sort of rivalry between the two. Anphil yields some practically interesting things like Kripke frame applications in CS and type theory developments in math, but it doesn't really compete on the field of "big philosophical problems". Most of the "hate" as others noted is coming from pseuds who barely understand what they're talking about or just repeating the ebyn memes they heard from others.

>My problem with analytical philosophy is that it no longer deals with day-to-day human existence on a level that is applicable in everyday life. If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.
gay

>Witty with the "Language is Like Not a Precise Tool Mkay My Man"
that's less witty and more derrida

I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of analytic philosophy on Veeky Forums. It's something that people say id dismissed despite being importaint but they never seem to be able to conjure up a damn thing to discuss.

Witty excluded, which from what I've heard was not much of an analytic himself.

This is one of the dumber opinions I've seen on Veeky Forums in the past few months. If you want to "improve human life", be a doctor or a designer or somesuch. Philosophy is about the pursuit of truth (though it regularly fails at this, its attempts are just as regular), even and especially when the truth is unpleasant. That is why it inevitably leads down the rabbit hole to nihilism etc. Some philosophers try in vain to fight this conclusion.

They will always try in vain.

>Witty excluded, which from what I've heard was not much of an analytic himself.
The Tractatus is the epitome of analytic autism and it gets brought up daily on here.

Anyways, in what world is even late wittgenstein not analytic?

It doesn't really "fail" per se, but philosophy is averse to consensus by it's nature (this is a good thing) so there will never be clear-cut "right" answers

Yeah, that thing is really autistic at some point.
We had a joke back at class that the whole reason he wrote is was to get disqualified from service on grounds of being batshit insane.

Asta's perspective is perfectly reasonable, though I disagree with it. When dealing with something like trans-ness, which is obviously subjective, it's important to consider how actual trans people experience their condition. But instead of rejecting the article (or publishing it as-was), she should have given editorial guidance — something along the lines of "This does not engage adequately with the existing literature." I think that if the article in question were revised slightly to address some of the obvious objections, it would be close to perfect.

Science if also the pursuit of truth. I think what he meant was something along the lines of what sad, but you already know that. You just wanted to seem clever.

>Anyways, in what world is even late wittgenstein not analytic?
Analytic philosophy is a style. Philosophical Investigations and all the other late works have no resemblance to this style at all. Analytics go to lengths to make sure no obscurity clouds their writing even at the expensive of excluding examples and reasons and topics that have been the object of philosophical discourse since the beginning. Late W has no problem being obscure and talking about existence and 'forms of life'. He resembles analytics in that they both are concerned with analyzing concepts and dissolving problems and also starting with language, but that's about it. Even early Wittgenstein is barely analytic despite the Tractatus being the bible of positivism. He cares too much about form and presentation.
>Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.
This is from the Tractatus. How many positivists are making statements like this in their essays?
Note: I'm not saying he's a continental either though. It's almost even a joke that Wittgenstein existed and there is still this much of a debate about the divide.

there's more to analytic philosophy than le teapot man and logical positivism

don't lecture me on analytic philosophy. I will beat you in an analytic philosophy contest everytime.

>Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature, so everything around us -humanity included - can be understanded in an axiomatic system.
This was recorded in 1978:
youtube.com/watch?v=et8kDNF_nEc

EKKCprCprKCpsCqsCApqKrs

heh, your move...kiddo

>Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.

He might have wrote it, but it is nothing but an amalgamation of the teaching of stoicism and epicureanism.
>Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist. Epicurus

The rest of the quote could be traced to Seneca's letters to Lucullus.

we like to imagine that there's a level of dork lower than ours

because it doesn't have practical applications like the existentialists do

if i wanted to play with math i'd go read some calculus books

okay. My point is somewhere over here and your's is somewhere over there.

please read this. Seriously please

philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/The Emergence of the Concept of the Analytic Tradition.pdf

I will look into it. But saying -as he does in the beginning - that philosophy and math were always very close since Plato required certain levels of knowledge before admitting someone to the Academy is like saying, that English Literature (degree) was always close to math, since no one can attend Oxbridge without obtaining a level of proficiency in in.

>40 minute video
>not tldr
Manners, please.

>40 page thesis.
>no tl;dr
Manners, please.

Maybe you should do the continental thing and do your homework on the history of philosophy too, while you're at it.

This is the literature board.

>on the israeli cartoon pornographic video game forum which is focused on the practice of hobbyist reading
>reading is held to be a chore

>This is the literature board.
Do you silently give people books and walk away in IRL discussions too?

>Veeky Forums
>focused on reading
Just how new are you?

This shouldn't concern you, user, nobody is going to talk to you IRL.

Been there, got the degree. Was fun.
Also why are you parading Leibniz? If you want to make an argument to his plance in the history of the philosophy of the mind concerning his resolution to the mind-body problem with a preexisting harmony and after that argue that the Problem of consciousness is the last frontier that philosophy should concern itself with because of CS then do that. And I will take it from there.

kek

>doesn't provide any commentary on shit he links
>wiling away with ebyn edgy replies when asked to
You might want to try /pol/, friendo.

>hurrdurr you don't take an hour to read stuff I linked in a casual discussion thread
if you have nothing to say you might as well fuck off, nigger

>mind

>Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature
This impetus also has its origin in Classical Greek philosophy, not Victorian England.

Just reads like wordmath that has less to do with the world and more to do with just the playing out of defined axioms

Some people touched on the reason why its not really talk about on here
1)Analytic Philosophy is done using syllogisms that are concrete, leaving little room for interpretation. Seeing as how this is a lit board many litizens like to explore alternative explanations.
2)Analytic Philosophy uses syllogisms and logic, and the best papers are logically rigorous, so to come up with refutations and criticisms against such arguments would require a very resilient critical thinking skill, of which many litizens dont have as they would rather you spoonfeed them on meaning then having them come up with their own interpretation, or they get so far in their own, make a tread for clarification and end up latching on to some other faggots interpretation .

Also when you consider a subject and examine the analytic canon, you find often enough that there really isnt a solid answer, theres good logical arguments for and against many things, this leaves the user confused, and no better off than once he started.
Continential philsophy gives a clear answer for the user to digest and often theres philosophies and interpretations that feel more true than others.

Anons have a good unstanding of informal fallacies but its hard to suss out the formal logical fallacies that are often buried under flowery prose.

Also to the anons saying that analytic philosophy isnt discussed on lit , i have seen many threads about the "argument from evil" on here which admittedly is babbys first syllogistic argument, at least on here. In school its Socrates is a man.

>muh logic and syllogism
>contradict yourself 4 times in one post

Absolutely horrible post, you got almost everything wrong

Friends, Romans, Litizens, lend me your ears!

This is a great thread so far , keep up the quality of the discussion with detailed answers!

Why are you discussing things that you are uninformed on?

Please enlighten me on these 4 contradictions user

because studying it requires knowledge of math and a rigorous attitude, which is lacking among most Veeky Forums-ers. That's why we decide to read about muh Being instead

this is primarily a literature board, so obviously most people would prefer continental, "softer" philosophers who are closer to literature, rather than mathematics

anyone into literature can enjoy the works of Camus or Sartre, but someone like Tarski is more of a scientist than a writer

Terrible post that says little more than your memepic. Modern analytic phil is so remotely removed from anything that people without special interest care about that it's pointless to "hur they jus to dum to understan" it. I'm trained in math and have problem understanding most papers, in fact they helped me a great deal during studies when delving into things like semantical analysis and model checking. However it would be daft to assume those would be of any help to people interested in common "humane" phil questions. Rigorous modal logic proofs of some abstract situation devoid of any relation to reality doesn't help those seeking understanding of ethics. Exotic interpretations of cathegorical type systems don't yield any epistemic knowledge applicable outside pure math. Anphil is useful and important, but the fact is it doesn't even share the utility scope of continental. The historical contraposition has long dissolved - the only thing that's left is some retards proficient in both disciplines memeing on a Kyrgyz yak milking BBS. Like you.

*no problem understanding

*unproficient

ethics doesn't exist in itself

even if it did, there would be no reason to live by it

don't study it

why are you claiming to be informed on something when you can't even formulate a coherent point? linking shit you haven't read or understood belongs to /pol/ and you should fuck off precisely there, double nigger

You can be a better critical thinker just reading analytic philosophy than you can reading continential.
Which any philosophy program highligts as the major product of their degree.
Continrntial philiosophy makes you proficient in literary criticism and little else.
You can apply literary criticism and formal criticism, under analytic philiosophy.

Im not championing either becuase philosophy is just word games trying to describe something intangble, thus in my opinion the important Truths often have little use for words.

that memepic says all there is to say about continental philosophy

Educational programs are not the topic of this discussion. Continental has so for produced far more worthy critical thinkers, while analytics with their lack of "literary criticism skills" as you put it, gave the world such greats like the teapot man who resorted to literal shitflinging when discussing anything post-Nitzschean and scary.

It's not even philosophy. It's making up some definition then jerking off over it then declaring some grand imperial truth, or leaving it to scientists or something. It limits philosophy to the role of a glorified English teacher or editor.
>its aboot muh troof becuz i sed so
See, this is exactly what you retards do. You make up some definition, then think that 'muh raisinen be volid' leads to some grand imperial truth that will give England back its empire. My fuck, you people cannot even begin to see how stupid you are.

>obscurity is bad becuz it hurts muh feefees
Barely, in quality.
He's parading Leibniz because anal y autistics cannot defend themselves without clinging to muh Great Men who will restore muh European (british) Empire over the Continental Savages

>concrete
Not defined
>syllogisms and logic
Not defensible
You have the rigor of a dead fish
No argument, I see.
>truth
Doesn't exist; a word-game itself.

Why do you feel the need to shit up good threads with your ebyn edgy edginess? Do you it somehow adds anything of value or anyone is impressed by it? There's been good posts by both sides, take your mental deficiencies to the meme thread.

>anything i dont like is le edgy xdddddfdDDFDDDD

I think you misunderstood every post you replied to. GJ

I thought Hilary Putnam was a woman.

No, the opposite is so.

There were analytic philosopher post witty.
Bertie was an analytic
Carnap
And actually some philosophers of the mind, those that work on AI and computer science are analytical.
The only ones that arent are the fruedians and its reactionaries.

And what exactly are you doing? How many important philosophers, continental or analytic, actually devoted entire works to improving people's lives? Did Hegel do that? Heidegger? Derrida?

/thread

Are you illiterate or just one of those new *nglos?

Fuck, why am I wasting this time on this shitty board.

A lot of it boils down to a contempt for learning.

I had always imagined her as a short and friendly philosopher grandma

Beacause most people here are under educated brits and americans. The split doesn't even meaningfully exist outside anglosphere. All the most intresting stuff happens in the space between british analytics and phenomenology.