I finally got around to watching a few lectures of this guy...

Read a book sometime. This guy stalked at least one of his female students.

Sorry bro, I'm not reading anything by someone who says things as ridiculous as this.

friendly reminder that Kripke is a literal dualist, observant Jew, and is famous for the worst interpretation of Wittgenstein since Lyotard

>the worst interpretation of Wittgenstein
Which was? I tried to read Naming and Necessity in my class on analytic philosophy but it went so far over my head that I don't remember what he was even trying to get at.

...

Well, why go to space when we could go under the oceans or the earth's surface?

Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, a 1982 book by Kripke, where he insists the entirety of "Philosophical Investigations" is about a minor rule-following paradox to which brave Saul proposes a solution
he literally calls it "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date"
there's a running joke that Wittgenstein is "Kripkenstein" in Kripke's work because his understanding of him is so narrow and skewed in the work

tbf he know he was misrepresenting him and the rule-following paradox is pretty weird but probably not as much of a disaster as kripke thought

that's not even true though. how is naming and necessity that inaccessible to the layman?

sure, having some sort of background in analytic philosophy and modal logic would help, but are the concepts that difficult to understand?

he just wants to feel supersmart for knowing him

To get what's at stake in Naming & Necessity you have to know the philosophy that preceded it.

Why didn't the Millian theory of reference work?
Why did Frege distinguish between Sinn and Bedeutung?
What's Russell's solution?
How does Wittgenstein change this?
Why is a contingent a priori such a big deal?
Which problem does rigid designation fix?

The language of the book isn't hard, but the subject matter presupposes a lot of philosophical knowledge

none of that is particularily complex stuff

Not if you're familiar with philosophy, no
If you're a layman it is

now i feel better for not reinventing modal logic at age 15

>it is complex if you don't know it
>it is simple if you know it

"the morning star is the evening star"
lol brainlets cant understand

>bothering to read analytical philosophy autism

...

"Kripkenstein" is just a recognition that what Kripke extracted from Wittgenstein is not necessarily something Witty himself thought, it's not a pejorative. Kripke is highly respected and his interpretation is viewed as insightfu

>refusing to read something based on second-hand information you acquired from a tuvan throat singing board

Yeah, why read philosophy that has a systematic, well-defined approach to problems instead of the complete mess that is continental philosophy, where literally everyone just uses words randomly and is purposefully trying to obfuscate everything.

>Yeah he's the best philosopher alive and it's cool that he almost single-handedly revived metaphysics and the like
what libtards believe, how does it feel to think you are smart but remain a nihilist for caring about ideas and denying the body?

>he cares about defineing problems
>he falls for the ''definition'' meme
>he does not give a shit about solutions
>he has no idea what a solution means

stay nihilistic

why do this when I can fap to traps

>all this shitposting
>somehow Kripkie is called a libtard simply for being analytic and well spoken
>all these layman contfags who just want to write word-salad calling out analytics for imposing academic standards in philosophy for a change
the absolute state of Veeky Forums

if you don't like analytics then I guess you can go back to bullshitting with Heidegger about
L I T E R A L L Y
N O T H I N G
you fucking faggots

Question to you Veeky Forums,

How can you respect yourself when this Kripke guy published several papers on logic that got him invited to TEACH at Harvard BEFORE FINISHING HIGH SCHOOL

t. butthurt american jewish grad student

t. undergrad

It's fascinating how it's always complete retards that have absolutely no understanding of or contact with modern day academical philosophy that engage in these autistical memeing matches about analytics vs continentals.

ha! I knew it!

me too :^)

It's fascinating how it's always complete retards that have absolutely no understanding of or contact with modern day academical philosophy that engage in these autistical memeing matches about analytics vs continentals.

lol I bet you go to a shitty British private school and think you're cool

>How can you respect yourself
It helps realizing that being in the middle of my doctoral I've already contributed more utility-bearing applicable knowledge to the world than a luminous jewish prodigy in his whole career.

I bet you'll drop out :^)

I've had enough Jewish mind games aleeady, desu, probably a good idea

I'm sure you've been shaking with the papers in your hand at this very moment user, waiting for someone to tell you to stop

Noone will

>systematic, well-defined approach to problems

Analytic philosophy has none of these things. Just the appearance of it

Eh its just something ive considerd

But what is being par excellence, if not the conjunction of the two phallic hot dogs of the ego and super ego residing withing the self which comes to life in the light of the being standing in the life standing in the light of being and itself, per say?

Where's the id in this phallusea?

>post analytic phil into google translate and flip back and forth from english to german
>gradually becomes continental

Worst post I've ever seen

>makes up words and doesn't bother to give them a meaning or a definition
woah... so this is the power....of continental philosophy

Page 35 of On the Logic of Ordinary Conditionals by Robert N. McLaughlin, continentalized:

>If Question is true, that gilds "true" for others. (Were you?). From that time on? Speculators! Completely impossible: "If the ship has cut off, it is not." The musical instrument is defeated. It was to be seen, had happened in the world where there was a conflicting legal language with the greatest possible from the drought.

Original:

>False, whether 'q' is true in the closest (but by definition unactual) world in which 'p' is true. (How could one find out such a thing?) We want to know what would happen, what conclusion one might draw, if the event expressed by 'p' is actualized by its occurrence. The possible worlds logician will not permit us to infer from (1) the truth of
>(4) 'If the vase is unbroken it has not been dropped'
>because the nearest world in which the vase is unbroken may be different from the nearest world in which the vase is dropped. Yet suppose we regard (1) and (4) as being about the occurrence or otherwise of events in the observable world and understand 'occurrence in the observable world' as something that may be happening now or that may occur in the near future. Then (1) and (4) may be taken as saying,
>(l)(i) 'If the vase is dropped in the observable world, it will break' and
>(4)(i) 'If the vase is unbroken in the observable world, it has not been dropped.'
>I expect that even the possible worlds logician will agree that (4)(i) can be inferred from (l)(i). Because if one were to find the vase unbroken in the observable world, then it has not been dropped or (l)(i) is false. I suspect also that (l)(i) and (4)(i) do express the meanings of (1) and (4) in normal speech and that this is why contraposition traditionally has been thought to hold for conditionals. Although a conditional about prospective occurrences does not assume the fulfillment of the affirmation or denial of its 'if' clause or its 'then' clause, it does assume that such fulfillments as do occur will occur in the observable world. If this is so, then it is not surprising that it is the common view of conditionals that they entail their own contrapositives.
>It is worth observing also that the possible worlds logician, no less than the rest of us, must estimate the truth of an unfulfilled conditional on the basis of his knowledge of the experienced world. He is not in a position to take a privileged peek at the contents of possible worlds but must judge a conditional's truth or falsity in the light of his knowledge of this world's happenings. And if his judgment is grounded on the best type of evidence—evidence of a sort that supports the truth of a statement that itself would necessitate the truth of the unfulfilled conditional—there is every reason to . . .
I have no idea how it got so reduced.

1 □ 2 = 3
5 □ 10 = 15
23 □ 25 = 48
68 □ 57 = ????

99% fail this quiz. Will you? CLICK HERE

>The musical instrument is defeated.
post yfw continentals save the day again while analytics autistically debate truth

bump

its a mystery how he writes so lucidly but doesnt even seem high functioning in real life

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ljUecE8eAH0

>one guy

You're a fucking retard if you think Quine revived metaphysics.

OK smartie, who did?

>hasn't read him
Kripke is the most accessible analytictard one could read. Sure, having some Millian and Frege-Russell names shit might help, but you absolutely do not need Witty to get into N+N

>muh phenomenology + meth and economics
Spooks all the way down

Not wrong, defs an uninspired plagiarist, but what alternative do we have? Rorty and his disciples?

Not any more than your average undergrad seminar

>reads Beyond Good and Evil once

Anyone up for speculating whether Kripke's fetishization of names as the exclusive rigid designators is just some Jewish psychological ploy to justify the pronouncements of "God?"

Kripke, obviously.

In my experience, the notion of a rigid designator doesn't make sense to a layperson. They always say, 'yeah, but I could have had a different name, so how can a name refer to the same thing at every world?' Even people with some phil. background that don't read any analytic stuff say it. And it's really hard to get them to understand if they don't have a first course in modal logic.

lmao

yeah that's stupid but I feel like there's a strong wittgenstein-esque criticism hiding in these lines of argument

Translated sounds like kierkegaard tbqu

Which wittgenstein? Early Wittgenstein casts doubt on anything like modality, at least in a sense we can articulate. Who knows about later Wittgenstein, but later Witt. is even more skeptical about language so he'd probably deny any metaphysical weight to names lmao.

Idk i have the intuition that people can be explained anything with the right teacher but I always wonder if that's blind optimism on my part.

*rigid optimism

Why is Dave Chalmers so fucking cool lads?

just read nietzsche like everyone else, spergs
philosophy is just a meme anyway

nietzsche was a sperg

not even brainlets, I have a woman in my course going for her doctorate that still can't fucking grasp this, will argue incessantly that Cassius clay and Mohammad ali are two unique people. The simplest fucking example she doesn't understand.

the fuck

It is absolutely mesmerizing to have my old ass professor argue with her inane schizoid word salad

doctorate in philosophy?

yup, she is a perfect example of delusion. Literally said Hume did not believe in causality

well, he didn't

That's not THAT stupid

He was skeptical about it, and he didn't think we can know whether something is causal or correlated. But it's a pretty big stretch to say he didn't believe in it

It's stupid to say he flat out denied the existence of causal relations. Skeptical about knowing it and denial of its existence are not 1:1

>Hume didn't believe in morality

yeah obviously

Hume didn't really say anything beyond "lol i dunno about this"

>Skeptical about knowing it and denial of its existence are not 1:1
If reality is perception, then this can't be the case.

good thing hume didn't think that

Seems like he wasn't very thorough. Upon inspection it's impossible to conceive of a reality that doesn't involve my perception of it.

reality is perception =/= perception is reality

baka deadass

He's shite. Stop buying anal autistic games.

The cupola "is" implies identity, by way of Leibniz. Those statements read the same forwards and backwards. The palindrome belies the falsity of your proposition.

>systematic
Cancer
>well-defined
Actually obfuscating. None of these twats understand language. Also, not a positive.
I'm sorry kiddo but anal autism is just playing with logic and pretending that something is being done. It's philosophy for people that think so little of philosophy that they would reduce it to busywork and problem-making.

Academic standards are arbitrary nonsense. Academia needs to die. Stop sucking STEM dick.
Face it, phenomenology is the only viable field today.
Average anal autistic:
>i defined this as this, so this is this and that is this and look at me i can obfuscate language by introducing a foreign influence and therefore you should be socially liberal fiscally conservative... if you are logical!

You don't know yet, do you? Philosophy died.

>haha derrida exists and he intentionally obfuscated therefore all philosophy that isnt PURE FUCKIN BRITISH CUNT or down-home country boy American is just FUCKING DILDOS THEREFORE A PROGRESSIVE TAX IS FAVORABLE FOR THE GREATER GOOD

Wrong. He memed about it to piss off those making causal claims. Read some of his essays with this in mind and you'll see how sarcastic he was.

Sarcasm is sloppy

No, bad philosophy just moved to LONDON to shit about about classic architecture, and contrary to his belief, the rest of Europe expatriated him while he was off the continent.

>LONDON
PARIS*

Yes, Hume is a sloppy and annoying writer. Repeats himself too often, goes on for pages about the same thing he went on about a few pages ago. Makes bold claims and goes nowhere with them, but goes miles with subtle claims.
Asshole.

Nope, PARIS is on the continent.