Was he the first analytic philosopher?

That and the problems it sees itself as existing to deal with, along with the interpretations of prior philosophers it views as essential to its own project. An analytic finds the realism vs. anti-realism debate important, a continental might skip over this because he feels Kant's Copernican Revolution has ended the debate

no

You're doing a whole lot of talking around the subject, saying what it's not, what it might be, what it uses, who practices it, but not much about what it is itself. I'm not against the analytic school. I'm just not sure you know what it is.

I told you what it is. It's a philosophical tradition that distinguishes itself on the basis of clarifying concepts using syllogistic language, as well as the problems and previous history it views as pre-eminent to its own self. Those are really the only differences it has with continental philosophy. You'll find debates on the meaning of being in analytic as well as continental philosophy, but the routes and methods they use to get to their conclusions are different

which is funny because most analytical philosophy papers, arguments and descriptions of analytical philosophy have no truth value :(

Wasn’t he the anti-analytical philosopher? He ultimately opposed the us of human reason and said we should rely on the spirit of the daemon for decision-making. Sure, gathering and division are part of his process, but they are just a stepping stone

No that's someone else. He's the one that's an analytic.

Is it possible to be an analytical mystic? Don’t the two terms contradict each other in a crucial way? Or do you think Plato wasn’t a mystic? Who was more of an analytical philosopher, Plato or Aristotle? I read the above definitions and contrasts.

Analytic philosophy was not just a reaction against Hegel. It was primarily a philosophical tradition cast in light of the developments in logic in the late 19th/20th century.

Plato was the epitome of a continental philosopher. What part of his philosophy are you referring to as mystic?

>All philosophy makes use of reason and logic.
You'd hope so, but no.

... the goal of leaving the body as though it were a cave, the ascent of the soul to the sight of God, following the directions of a spiritual daemon for the purpose of perfecting the soul, the positive qualities of divine madness... I could go on, but all of his ultimate objectives are mystical, analytical means are employed along the way to the goals, but they are of no use with regard to the final goals of his philosophy. The impulse to human reasoning is a road block that must be overcome when you get to a certain point.

nah that's NEETzsche

this desu.

I think Bertrand Russell was alone with his hate boner. I don't think Frege or Wittgenstein really cared about or even read Hegel. Iirc Hegel was also pretty influential among some early analytics like Whitehead.

If any movement was a "reaction against Hegel" it's existentialism.

>being this unaware of history of philosophy
No. That was Frege (probs), tho some say Mill.

be someone who literally just spent a ear learning this shit. Go read Soames you lazy fucks.

*year god damn it

anachronism is shit

this is some of the cleverest bait I've ever seen. 10/10.