Do you like analytical and continental philosophy equally, or do you prefer one to the other? Why?

Do you like analytical and continental philosophy equally, or do you prefer one to the other? Why?

I'm at a point where analytical philosophy is actually giving me answers...continental philosophers only offer baseless speculation

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>I'm at a point where analytical philosophy is actually giving me answers

I highly doubt that. Provide one "answer" you have gained from Analytic philosophy

2+2=4

...

I like analytic philosophy more.

I used to study continental and the main reason I switched is that the continental school seems to have a major problem with their method and how they go about dealing with justification.

There are a thousand different threads within the rope called continental philosophy so it isnt much use talking about it so generally here, but you can look at someone like Heidegger and see that there are incredibly fantastic and childish jumps in argumentation.

Just look up his essay "What is Metaphysics" and see how he approaches and deals with the concept of negation. There is no rhyme or reason given for why THIS approach is what will lead to understanding, and it is clearly needed.

Contrast this to say Wittgenstein or Frege and how they deal with the concept of negation. It is just breathtakingly clear to talk about the bi-polarity of truth and how it relates to our understanding of negation, rather than wax on poetically about how the abyss is out there or whatever the fuck.

I think the main reason for why this happens is that continental philosophy seems to have a far different connection to German idealism than analytic, who largely rejected it.

Continental, cause all phil is shit anyways and continental is a lot more fun and poetic.

i think both are worthwhile pursuits but i find continental stuff more compelling. i don't really view philosophy as a pursuit of Truth, which strikes me as inaccessible to us humans, but rather as a means of honing my critical thinking skills and engaging with interesting frameworks, though.

You say this but I would argue its the exact opposite waya round. Continental Philosophy at least does not claim to have a concrete method, whereas Analytic does but its 99% of the time illusory and just as arbitrary as say Heidegger.
In truth the Analytic school doesn't have a method but just a vague sensibility that they pass for method, if something does sound "Analyticy" then its derided regardless of the actual interest and power it provokes in people.

If we're going to be pulling shit out of our asses either way let it be good shit

>i don't really view philosophy as a pursuit of Truth, which strikes me as inaccessible to us humans

What a ridiculous statement, how do you take for true that truth is inaccessible then?

You've never read any analytic philosophy

Analytic philosophy is the metal of philosophy.

I have actually, I've a philosophy degree from a mixed department where I recieved a clear runthrough of Philosophy of Language and Science from Frege to Quine. I was none too impressed
Whats your background?

minus 1 that's 3 quik maths

The people in this thread who like Analytical philosophy make it seem like the "In this moment I am Euphoric" of intellectual pursuits.

>Never caused a genocide
>Claims to be metal
Analytic philosophy is the Christian show tunes of philosophy

They're no different IRL, insufferable dilettantes less interested in truth than manipulating "official" knowledge

>Analytic does but its 99% of the time illusory and just as arbitrary as say Heidegger.

Even if this is just a casual banter thread about philosophy, a concrete example of what you are talking about could actually make a dialogue happen. Not only that but it is flat out incorrect, logical analysis in all the various forms it took is what allowed us to develop modern logic so that we could arrive eventually to the computers we have today. Even without going all the way back to Boolean Algebra and making that the evidence for analytic, contemporary logic is worthwhile in its own right as one of if not the attempt to understand how we argue.

Still, leave it to an advocate of continental philosophy to claim that an opponent is "illusory" and "arbitrary" without giving parameters or concrete examples to show what these words are supposed to mean.

without much confidence desu

Christ how fucking pre-Kantian, it doesn't matter if your entire system is 100% boolean consistent when the semantic content of your terms are arbitrarily constituted.
This is the precise problem with analytic philsophy, you can build the finest and securely deisgned tower on Earth but it wont mean shit if its foundations are on sand. This is how you end up with such proposterously absurd situations like having to debate the existence of """qualia"""

>logical analysis in all the various forms it took is what allowed us to develop modern logic
Why do *nglos think they are Aristotle?
>so that we could arrive eventually to the computers we have today
Why do *nglos think they are Leibniz? When Boole found out Leibniz got there first, he was happy.
>contemporary logic is worthwhile in its own right as one of if not the attempt to understand how we argue
Take your naive cognitivism back to the 50s, O great calculator.

I dont know who you are trying to fool. You act as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start. Do I really need to reference "Sinn and Nominatum"? Even Wittgenstein's PI.

Nothing but hot air from you.

Aristotle didnt make modern logic. What a joke

Logical positivism was a failed project though
You can't do that, because Russell failed

It's a self-justifying statement because even that is possibly untrue, so truth really is mostly inaccessible.

>as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start
Yes, signifier and signified are in an arbitrary relationship. What's taking them so long?

Trying but not succeeding, thats the whole fucking problem. Wittgenstein was right when he declared the Analytic tradition a dead project, its just only recently the rest of the School is finally accepting it

>It's a self-justifying statement

No it isn't you fucking retard. Its the exact opposite, an outright contradiction

As per Analytic Philosophy, Number is a construct with little to no connection to the Material world.

QARAJSRLKJASLJK FUCKING FUCK

Point one(1) fault in Peano's axioms, I'll wait.

>arbitrary
Kek.

>using a linguistic model that hasn't actually been relevant in linguistics for a century and is only used by humanitiescucks

Have you actually read what you are talking about? The signifier and the signified being arbitrary is a problem for formal logic why?

Lets see you explain this, and have this not be something addressed in the analytic canon


>not succeeding
>writes this on a computer

define 1, + and =

>>writes this on a computer

You're seriously deluded if you honestly think there has ever been a direct contribution to Computing from Analytic Philosophy. Everything necessary had been laid out since Leibniz

I really want them to respond to this

>Everything has been laid out since Leibniz

Care to explain what you mean by this dear?

i think something can be taken as "true" (i.e. pragmatic) but not necessarily "True" (i.e. ontologically valid)

See Computational theory didn't just pop out of thin air in the 40s

Whats the distinction other than the former being whatever you feel like it being

>has ever been a direct contribution to Computing from Analytic Philosophy

>Boolean Algebra
>Peirce on logical operations and circuits
>Calude Shannon develops the digital circuit

Get fucked

Indeed the man was older than Wittgenstein.

You say:
>as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start
but the answer was already there.

>The signifier and the signified being arbitrary is a problem for formal logic why?
Indeterminacy of translation, or how would you intend to translate your retarded opinions into formal logic.

Leibniz mastered binary numbers and was building computers while Newton was doing alchemy in his lab. Leibniz wasn't even the first to build a computer, but combined the two ideas to make a decent machine.

>Boolean
Already covered by Leibniz, who built a computer accordingly.
>Peirce
Pragmatist.
>Calude Shannon
Not a philosopher.

If that is really what you meant then youre just kidding yourself. Leibniz didnt make the modern computer and people had to work on making it, and some of them were logicians.

Honestly you can just wiki history of computation. That will be more productive for you, but feel free to shift the parameters of what a meaningful contribution is

one enables you to most effectively operate through life while the other transcends and is unconcerned with you i guess

This only applies to solid objects

>Already covered by Leibniz, who built a computer accordingly.

Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra. Stop changing the goal posts

>Pragmatist.

Also a logician you child

>Not a philosopher.

His thesis is the application of Boolean Algebra, the thesis that created the digital circuit.

Youre done, just stop

How surprising, an analytic philosophy fan throws the onus of proof out the window as soon as it doesn't suit him.

What do you take as "effective operation through life", just whatever you feel like it should be?

sure, it's a strictly human concern so why shouldn't it be restricted to the particular human?

>Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra. Stop changing the goal posts

lol if you say so

Its not surprising when its said in a thread with multiple posts pointing toward said supposed proof

Because that has no implication on what if anything that individual should prioritize or value. Its a self defeating logic

>Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra
Boole was happy to find out he did.
>logician
Not an analytic philosopher. Read his Evolutionary Love.
>his thesis
Not a thesis in philosophy.

The road towards computing was the work of universal geniuses, they cannot be analytic philosophers.

>just stop
I'll have you know we're already in the post-analytic philosophy era, you might be betting on a dead horse.

not in itself, but "whatever you feel like it should be" is a means, not an endpoint, no? it necessarily has to be directed towards something.

Leibniz's logic was largely forgotten and was only brought back after the basics of modern logical systems were in place.

Even if there werent the case, what is your point? That sadly analytic philosophy didnt start centuries earlier with disciples of Leibniz showing up and furthering his logic?

No matter what point you take, someone still needs to further the work.

>He was happy to find out he did

He was happy to find that out after he already made his formal system. You are not saying anything besides announcing a curiosity of history.

The point is that Analytic Philosophy doesn't have nor ever had a monopoly on symbolic logic and as a consequence should be thanked for modern computing. All Analytic Philosophy does rather is fetishize the work of actual scientists and missuse their rudimentary mechanisms in the synthethically higher domains where they serve no serious purpose.
LARPers from birth to death

No, that the history of computers precedes analytic philosophy by several centuries, George Boole does by one, and no analytic philosopher had anything to do with it, ever.

I like reading both. Was a hardline analytic in school but I've been reading some continental stuff on my own and enjoying it. I think it's school that the two exist as kind of alternate histories, and developed completely in their own ways.

>seemingly a nice thread
>brainlets claiming we're to thank anphil for computers
The only relevant major contributions to CS from analytic philosophers are Chomsky's work (albeit in technical linguistics, not philosophy) and to a much lesser extent Kripke semantics applied to type theories which are fairly prominent in ML research lately.

ITT: People who have absolutely no grasp of History of Philosophy (which might be a good thing, who knows)

Continental is fun but self-admittedly illusory. Analytic is boring but gives precise explanations for small but important problems (e.g., reference, intentionality, implicateur).

In my experience, the dichotomy arise from idiots in the Continental camp not recognizing the important of the specialized problems of analysis (e.g., theories of reference yield major implications for metaphysics, specifically ontology). Likewise, all the autists in the Analytic camp fail to grasp the importance of their work, fail to communicate the importance of their work (even someone as brilliant as Quine sounds fucking retarded when trying to spell out the implications of his radical empiricism), or remain at the specialized level and thereby remove any importance their work may have (e.g., the qualia shit people were bitching about).

I think both camps are equally fucked, and hence Kant really is the final boss of epistemology. The Lord and Savior for the Continentals (Heidegger) and the Analytics (Kripke) both start from direct assumptions that are really just maneuvers around rather than through the problems first raised in the Critique.

All of these problems come from not reading enough Hegel

Spoken like a true Hegelian

>he read everything wrong

If you think that there's any real difference between analytic and continental philosophy beyond a few writing conventions and occasionally the subject matter, then I have some bad news for you.

Continental philosophers blow Analytics out of the water who are all still stuck on Cartesian dualism essentially.

This is a pretty good post for summing up why analytics are basically just people who can't handle the deeper truths of continental philosophy. They don't understand the limitations of language, so they can't understand when continentals try to point out the limitations in language by twisting it around to say difficult things through metaphor, so they run back to authors who are still mired in a linguistic metaphysics, that allows for arbitrary definitions and claims to truth. They simply can't follow the continentals all the way to the modern limit of philosophy, so they have to retreat into the meaningless logic program.

Heidegger's ontology of language is virtually identical to Wittgenstein's ontology of language in his later work, once he realised how stupid his reference theory of truth and "atomic facts" were, and how the entire program of analytic philosophy was misguided in trying to build truth on foundations of sand. The sand is there, it can be built and stood upon, but you always have to remember that it's sand at the end of the day and no foundation can ever be trans-human or trans-linguistic or transcendentally true.

It's like saying modern medical science is too complicated so you prefer to go back to the theory of humors, when things were nice and simple and everything lined up nicely and made sense.

The fact that analytics abandoned the German problem of how to understand the conditions of the possibility of truth is a weakness and not a strength. Not understanding the conditions of your truths and rules for truth just makes you blind. Go read On Certainty and if you agree with Wittgenstein you're already a continental.

Jesus Christ Superstar was p. good tho

>Analytic is boring but gives precise explanations for small but important problems (e.g., reference, intentionality, implicateur).

Analytic theories of reference and intention and implicature are all broken and superseded by continental theories.

Reference is broken out of the box, coming from a truth-correspondence metaphysic, and is better handled by pragmatist or neopragmatist quasi-continental stuff even if you want to remain vaguely analytic about it. Intentionality is the hallmark of phenomenology and handled MUCH more subtly by the phenomenology, which understands phenomena as complexly intersubjective (and usually structuralistic), and not in a wooden sense-reference way that presupposes mental contents. Implicature is handled better by an intersubjective model of different associative complexes, not by hypostatising "implications" of "speech acts."

Just read Ricoeur's sublation of analytic/Anglo work on metaphor, into an actual working model of how metaphor works at the semantic level, via predication, as a means of "redescribing" reality (ontology) continuously, by altering and stabilising the associative complexes and references of different meanings. It's a fundamentally Heideggerian, Gadamerian viewpoint. Analytic philosophy can't handle that shit because it's so wooden and hypostatises tagmemes and their functioning.

That's justified if you're actually a super smart scientist.

He dreamed about it, but the analysts achieved it.

We had logic for two thousand years, but it took Boole and Frege to clearly formalize it and show what could be done with it. From that followed computing theory.

You mean Alan Turing achieved it, while actually studying mathematics instead of LARPing as one
Analytics didn't do shit

plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/
Alan Turing drew much between 1928 and 1933 from the work of the mathematical physicist and populariser A. S. Eddington, from J. von Neumann's account of the foundations of quantum mechanics, and then from Bertrand Russell's mathematical logic.

It was from the lectures of the topologist M. H. A. (Max) Newman in that year that he learnt of Gödel's 1931 proof of the formal incompleteness of logical systems rich enough to include arithmetic, and of the outstanding problem in the foundations of mathematics as posed by Hilbert: the “Entscheidungsproblem” (decision problem). Was there a method by which it could be decided, for any given mathematical proposition, whether or not it was provable?

If you don't see the connection between analytic philosophy and math and cs, then I feel sorry for you.

just call them idiots. they deserve tobe shamed to the point that they shut up. failing that, armed conflict is inevitable as they justify starvation in socialist economies via cultural relativist comparisons of tea ceremony

they need to be beheaded if they cant be silenced

continental philosophers happen to make discoveries sometimes, but the method is justificationism cum religion

you people just play stupid games using language to mutate meaning

e.g. racism changes from "treating someone poorly based on their race not their character" to "not giving someone black privileges, affirmative action, and forgiving murderers"

great. thanks for destroying civilisation. you think you're going to survive the bloodshed thats coming?

>redescribing reality continuously by altering associative meaning
you type all this as if analytics does not describe this

Reject the cloven duality, friends

Cause Wittgenstein's later work had no impact on analytic philosophy, right?

>they need to be beheaded if they cant be silenced

So this is the power of analytic philosophy...

>Analytic Philosophers say Analytic Philosophy highly important!

I'm sure Turin was aware of Russell as a student of Cambridge but it does not at all indicate his work was at all useful for him, but rather just a fanciful bit of necessary fashion of the day.
But feel free to describe how Russel's work predicated the Turing machine

the continentals are the ones beckoning everyone to let isis in user

don't be a faggot

continental phil is like sunni at this point. a VERY efficient method of dominating dialogue in bureaucracies and VERY efficient at punishing dissent

There is more than one side to Continental Philosophy

kek

right you are my friend

You just havent read what you are talking about. This is basic analytic history to know that Godel's Incompleteness theories only come in response to Russell's Principia Mathmatica

>while actually studying mathematics

Oh, you mean under Wittgenstein?

Continental is the only real philosophy

"I don't think we can know the truth."
"HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT'S TRUE."
"I don't."
"CONTRADICTION CONTRADICTION"

God what a worthless brainlet.

I tend to read either historical or analytic philosophy but I don't have the instinctual hatred of continental that many do since my undergrad involved a lot of Continental. Grad school pretty much entirely weened me off of continental and onto analytic.

I think the biggest way the divide is often drawn is also where my problem lies with continental philosophy. The style is needlessly obscure. I get the points that revolve around the possibility of new ideas needing to be expressed in unfamiliar ways but most continental philosophy seems to either be totally incomprehensible or can be boiled down to old ideas.

The plus side of continental-ish philosophy is that there tends to be a more holistic approach. In the philosophers who I can make sense of, I often do find genuinely interesting ideas that rely on pulling together a bunch of different areas of philosophy, social criticism, etc. (Zizek does this for me oftentimes). Analytic tends to suffer from too narrow a focus. That, however, is also analytic's strength. It's actually able to present coherent arguments on a regular basis.

I also feel like a good deal of continental philosophers are charlatans but I don't think all non-analytic should be condemned because of that.

>Turing machines, like computer programs, are countable; indeed they can be ordered in a complete list by a kind of alphabetical ordering of their ‘tables of behaviour’. Turing did this by encoding the tables into ‘description numbers’ which can then be ordered in magnitude. Amongst this list, a subset of them (those with ‘satisfactory’ description numbers) are the machines which have the effect of printing out infinite decimals. It is readily shown, using a ‘diagonal’ argument first used by Cantor and familiar from the discoveries of Russell and Gödel, that there can be no Turing machine with the property of deciding whether a description number is satisfactory or not.

You act as if David Hilbert, Cantor, Peano, Frege, Russell, Godel, and Turing are all not joined together by a common thread because it disrupts your narrative of how useless analytic philosophy must be

see

Use them to prove Goodstein's Theorems. I'll wait, kiddo.

Also Godel is my favorite analytic philosopher

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God, you think Hegel solved epistemology? I bet you think he didn't make any assumptions in his Phenomenology of Spirit too, just like he said he wouldn't right? Stick to reading the Preface, at least you'll learn how to shitpost correctly from that

I think this thread is getting too bogged down in discussion over computation and that being the evidence for the analytic side

Several people have mentioned how continental has a method that is either obscure or has a problem with justification, does continental have a response to this?

>analytic philosophy is stupid

ummm no try again sweetie...

Gödel's theorem was not in the least necessary to Turings work on computers. While cute it holds no actual scientific value other than clearly elucidating the obvious and is connected his work only as a display of its function rather than vice versa. A mere consequential phenomenon

>turing
>Alan Turing (1912–1954) never described himself as a philosopher
>mathematical physicist and populariser A. S. Eddington
Not a philosopher
>J. von Neuman
Not a philosopher
>Bertrand Russell
This is the first time you clowns mention an analytic philosopher. I am shocked that you could manage to accomplish this. Now what exactly is the connection between Russel and Turing? Turing read Russell, yes. I'm positive he read a lot more garbage in his life, what's exactly indespensable for Turing's project about it? Where's the argument?
>M. H. A. (Max) Newman
Not a philosopher
>Gödel
The Czech that BTFO the foundationalist quest of Russel, Vienna Circle and the analytic movement more generally, the first important step towards post-analytic philosophy. Fucking love that guy.
>Hilbert
Not a philosopher
>If you don't see the connection between analytic philosophy and math and cs, then I feel sorry for you.
I see a bunch of connections between CS and mathematicians and logicians that actually matter in the history of logic and computers, mostly because they aren't analytic philosophers. Many of them aren't professional philosophers of any stripe, and often the read the shit out of Kant. When they do study philosophy @ the Vienna Circle like Gödel, they end up sabotaging their retarded foundationalist fantasies and ushering us in the post-analytic era.

Learn the history of philosophy, mathematics and computers, and to make a fucking argument.

A close reading of this thread shows the supposed accomplishments of analytic philosophy do not come from analytic philosophers, as other, better people do the work for them.

The response would be "whose method?" because there is not one continental philosophy. Continental philosophers didn't even know they were continental philosophers before *nglos began yelling at the British idealists and the like in their midst.

Claims of obscurity cannot even be made consistently for individual thinkers because you can have, for example, Eco's Trattato di semiotica generale which is technical and difficult textbook, and a bunch of works of genre fiction of his that aren't, from the very same author, and still get some of his ideas on interpretation (i.e.: books talking about books in Nel nome della rosa, etc.). Foucault's histories were written for a general public and are easy reads, I won't be surprised if students find them easier than, say, the record of a conversation of his with Deleuze. Last but not least, philosophy isn't a method.

See: It's meaningless wanking, as proudly stated by Analytic Philosophy.

Continental "philosophy" isn't philosophy, it's more like bad literature. It's the praxeology of philosophy.
Imagine if any other endeavor in achieving some form of knowledge reasoned the way continentals are:
>dude, using language with clear, standardized definitions is bad!
>yeah I know this way of analyzing this phenomenon was completely debunked in the relevant field, but we should still use it!
>what? dividing our endeavor in smaller sub fields so that we can more efficiently understand it? That's madness!

>A close reading of this thread

Fuck off you self-important faggot

Lol what

Excellent post my man