Continentals: people concerned about genuine matters, real world issues, problems concerning humanity...

Continentals: people concerned about genuine matters, real world issues, problems concerning humanity, whose works focus on uplifting humanity and creating real change in the world.

Analytics: people concerned about hypothetical matters, non-issues, problems concerning highly obscure mathematical nonsense, whose works are generally indifferent of and inconsequential to mankind.

Analytic philosophers attack continentals all the time precisely because they are more interested in creating an academic safe space for themselves where all philosophical discourse and world concerns revolving around the concept of power can't touch them, because they don't like to be reminded of their low, non-influential stations in life. Reductionists who convolute and degrade all philosophy into "logic" and everything that has to do with the emotions even slightly, such as all value judging, they pass over in silence and dismiss it as something not worth speaking about.

Discuss and prove me wrong, fellas.

You are just presupposing a framework of value where philosophy is supposed to be about """""real issues""""".

Analytics are just carrying on the classic philosophical quest for truth.

>Analytics: people concerned about hypothetical matters, non-issues, problems concerning highly obscure mathematical nonsense, whose works are generally indifferent of and inconsequential to mankind.
I think this may have been true at one time, but it seems the concern of modern analytics overlaps with continentals, it's just that there's a different approach.
>they pass over in silence
It's strange to use Wittgenstein here because he was hardly an analytic like the ones you describe and not many people use that line in the TLP to mean that. For the most part, the analytics you describe rather ignore it and take the earlier descriptions of reality in the book quite literally, even though it's clear that with those final few lines he began a new era in analytic philosophy, only realised more recently, all but finishing all previous analytic though (Russell, Frege, etc.).

Prove to me that I actually have consciousness
Oh you can't?
Looks like I win

>You are just presupposing a framework of value where philosophy is supposed to be about """""real issues""""".
What you just pointed out is a real issue (i.e. a common and influential one) and one Continentals would address, and have addressed. Analytics wouldn't address it, they don't address it. They dismiss it like you just did because only them and them alone are "just carrying on the classic philosophical quest for truth."

>It's strange to use Wittgenstein here

I don't think OP is literate enough to have done that on purpose

...

The Wittgenstein reference was intentional. Regardless of how he is taken now, his Logico-Philosophicus played a big role in developing the Vienna Circle where a lot of this pandering to logic nonsense stemmed from.

>correct in every possible world
There is only one world, you retarded Analytic.

This is the first Virgin-Chad image I seen where the Chad still ends up looking more like a virgin

Oh yea, I forgot that Continentals haven't discovered modal logic yet.

If you knew anything about analytic philosophy beyond what you've heard third-hand here you'd know that the entirerty of modern analytic philosophy post-1950 has been dedicated to refuting the positivism of the Vienna Circle. Can you even explain the differences between Ayer and Kripke?

Philosophical insight to proportional to virginal appearance.

>a type of logic makes multiple worlds in reality a possibility
Loving. Every. Laugh.

>its analytics claim credit for an idea Leibniz came up with 300 years before them episode

Literally have no shame

>Analytic philosophers attack continentals all the time precisely because they are more interested in creating an academic safe space for themselves where all philosophical discourse and world concerns revolving around the concept of power can't touch them, because they don't like to be reminded of their low, non-influential stations in life
And this is coming from the people who have through the density of their writing and use of jargon have essentially rendered the serious discussion of social completely undemocratic. Continentals take real issues and transform the discourses around them into sterile, academic garbage.

When you give a Continental a hypothetical, they just mumble something about contingencies and power.

>who have through the density of their writing and use of jargon have essentially rendered the serious discussion of social completely undemocratic.

lmao the fuck does this even mean.
Memersons need to leave

I haven't read Ayer and Kripke thoroughly enough. I saw no point in continuing my investigation into that tradition after reading Russell and Wittgenstein and about the Vienna Circle in general.

>modern analytic philosophy post-1950 has been dedicated to refuting the positivism of the Vienna Circle.
They should just educate themselves on the Continental tradition and be done with it. No point in trying to refute nonsense.

Define your terms. What is "when" referring to?

Your level of knowledge seems out of proportion with your level of arrogance.

Doesn't it concern you in the slightest that you might not know as much as you think you do, and that your strongly held beliefs might in fact be the product of incomplete information?

It's called insight. Why the fuck would I continue reading about a tradition that starts off on such a horrible note? How are they considered Analytics if they are refuting the origins of the Analytic tradition? If their refutations are worth reading about at all, and not just MORE Analytic nonsense pretending to be refutations of their earlier peers, then they'd just be Continentals, who refuted the Analytics long before they were even a thing. They decimated the notion of the "will to truth" before the Analytics came around.

>Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.

It results in Derrida so its true

"Worlds" in modal logic, outside of modal realism, aren't "real". They just represent a possibility. It's just like a potential state in a finite state machine.

>Why the fuck would I continue reading about a tradition that starts off on such a horrible note?

Yea, why would I bother reading the Greeks when Thales asserted that all is water?

Check your arrogance.

>How are they considered Analytics if they are refuting the origins of the Analytic tradition?

"Analytics" these days are just their intellectual descendents and do not rely on their principles.

>Continentals, who refuted the Analytics long before they were even a thing
>They decimated the notion of the "will to truth" before the Analytics came around.

I must have missed that one.

There is no possibility of multiple worlds (universes, rather) by definition.

>I must have missed that one.
Clearly

Peterson being a dumbass doesn't change the fact the continentals have effectively divorced the gneral public from the discourses on issues that directly affect them.
>They should just educate themselves on the Continental tradition and be done with it. No point in trying to refute nonsense.
Searle and Rorty engaged with continental thought. I'm sure there other examples too. On the other side, Butler draws some ideas from Austin.

>How are they considered Analytics if they are refuting the origins of the Analytic tradition?

That's like asking how any continental philosopher can exist post-Husserl if they aren't Husserlians. Analytic philosophy, like continental, is not a monolith. It's a diverse tradition that plays host to a number of philosophical positions, not just your positivist bogeyman.

>If their refutations are worth reading about at all, and not just MORE Analytic nonsense pretending to be refutations of their earlier peers, then they'd just be Continentals

What qualifies as nonsense? Why can't there be philosophical debates within analytic philosophy, just as there are in continental?

>They decimated the notion of the "will to truth" before the Analytics came around

ah, another esteemed member of the Nietzsche fanclub. I am beginning to see the issue

>How are they considered Analytics
Probably because of people like you. Not many of them regard themselves as analytics, merely philosophers. And not many are hostile to the continental tradition, they just happened to scholastically diverge. But now, more than ever, they are reconvening.

>when Thales asserted that all is water?
That is a metaphysical assertion, albeit somewhat wrapped in an obscure poetic form, about life. That's not a bad note to start on.

>"Analytics" these days are just their intellectual descendents and do not rely on their principles.
The thread's not about these people then. It's about the original definition of what makes someone an Analytic, not what new faces are redefining it as.

>I must have missed that one.
You have some reading and thinking to do then.

>the fact the continentals have effectively divorced the gneral public from the discourses on issues that directly affect them.

Listen to yourself. Do continentals have brigades of thought police running around clubbing people who attempt to discuss ideas outside their domain?
If discourse fails to overcome the ideas that contintentals propose its because you both find them convincing and fail to offer a solution

>That is a metaphysical assertion, albeit somewhat wrapped in an obscure poetic form, about life. That's not a bad note to start on.

The presocratics seemed more like speculative physicists, so I'm not sure about that.

>The thread's not about these people then. It's about the original definition of what makes someone an Analytic, not what new faces are redefining it as.

When people say Analytic philosophy, it includes contemporary Anglophone philosophy. There's continuity with the past.

It's just a name. It's a "state", really. In some computer memory with 3 bits, all the states, or worlds, are:
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
Perhaps this is part of a real computer which switches the memory between state 000, 001, and 010. You can now talk about these worlds using language like: "It is impossible for the computer to be in state 111". "It is necessary that the memory is in state 000 or 001 or 010", "'the memory is in state 000' is a contingent statement"etc.

Then why use such an obtuse term as world at all?

>Why can't there be philosophical debates within analytic philosophy, just as there are in continental?
This is exactly what the safe space shit is about. "Agreeing to disagree" is a fundamentally unphilosophical notion. Opponents in philosophy never agree to disagree, they fundamentally disagree, in the deepest and most personal way possible among human relationships. Not to say that multiple philosophical traditions cannot exist, they do apparently (and unfortunately), but that does not mean they are all valid and WORTHY of existing.

Philosophical debates within Analytic philosophy are pointless endeavors because they are founded on an erroneous premise: that the will to truth is a foundational will. Everything that can flourish from such debates that assume this is the case will consequently be of drastically less value than debates in other philosophical traditions that do not originate from such flimsy premises.

So, like a dimension? We already know there are multiple of those. They all exist in the one world that is.

>Listen to yourself. Do continentals have brigades of thought police running around clubbing people who attempt to discuss ideas outside their domain?
No, but the language and institutionalization of their work has made it difficult, if not impossible, for those outside to meaningfully engage with these ideas, and those on the outside are who probably need to engage with them the most.
>If discourse fails to overcome the ideas that continentals propose its because you both find them convincing and fail to offer a solution
I don't want to overcome anything. For the most part, I think the major figures of the continental tradition can are at the least very insightful. It's just that they've managed to render these discourses around real world problems as sterile and academic as the Principia. Their works aren't capable, as OP put it, of "uplifting humanity and creating real change in the world."

>Opponents in philosophy never agree to disagree, they fundamentally disagree

I don't know how you can say that some analytic philosophers don't fundamentelly disagree with each other when you've already copped to not reading any of them. And I don't know what factors are sufficient for you to determine the difference between "agreeing to disagree" and "fundamental disagreement in philosophy". Kripke thinks Lewis's modal realism is stupid and wrong and goes out of his way to demonstrate it. Would this not be a case of fundamental disagreement, in this case over the ontology motivated by our logical concerns?

If it is such an arbitrary matter that they could express their ideas in a different manner then anyone can come along and explain their ideas in that manner. If not then what is there to complain about if they could not do what others can not?

>The presocratics seemed more like speculative physicists
Does his statement sound like speculative physics to you? He was making a declaration about life / reality, based on observation. Heraclitus Homericus noted that Thales had observed the transforming states between matter. The poetic form he delivered it in justifies even further the likelihood of the intended metaphysical property of his words; a sense of the eternal rings in it.

>I don't know how you can say that some analytic philosophers don't fundamentelly disagree with each other when you've already copped to not reading any of them.
I've read Russell and Wittgenstein. Did you miss that part? And why can I not say that if I haven't read all of the "new Analytics"? Are they the only fucking philosophers that exist now?

If two people are truly philosophical opponents, then whatever umbrella term categorizes them together is worthless and flimsy and not worth considering. My point being that from the sounds of it, unless he does not completely refute the fundamental values of the Analytics, Kripke does not qualify as an Analytic and there is no point in mentioning him here.

It's not a meta/physical word, it's just about a possibility space.
You can define that space how you wish. "All possible worlds" could be the computer memory in or it could refer to this world (your usage) if X happened instead of Y, maybe this is what you mean by dimension (I assume you were't talking about the spatio-temporal kind).

Sure they can be explained, but that still doesn't allow for meaningful participation in the discourse. There's still a pretty hurdle.

Ultimately the political writings of Russell and Chomsky are far more impactful and uplifting even if they may not be as insightful.

>I've read Russell and Wittgenstein. Did you miss that part?

That's not sufficient to have an informed discourse on analytic philosophy.

>And why can I not say that if I haven't read all of the "new Analytics"? Are they the only fucking philosophers that exist now?

The "new analytics" aren't new, which is precisely why your characterization of analytic philosophy is wrong. Positivism faded in the 50s, and it was killed by other analytics, not continentals.

>If two people are truly philosophical opponents, then whatever umbrella term categorizes them together is worthless and flimsy and not worth considering. My point being that from the sounds of it, unless he does not completely refute the fundamental values of the Analytics, Kripke does not qualify as an Analytic and there is no point in mentioning him here.

What a ridiculous criterion, not to mention nigh incoherent. Analytic philosophy is a style of philosophizing. There are no "fundamental values" of the analytics, other than a consensus on utilizing similar tools and handling similar problems, which is why you can have such a range that encompasses the hardcore logical empiricism of Ayer and the a-priori rationalism of Kripke. It is the same with continental philosophy.

>Ultimately the political writings of Russell and Chomsky are far more impactful

I totally disagree. As historians sure whatever. But as political philosophers there isn't a person on Earth who cares what they had to say, as they said very little at all of substance

It's funny that you'd post Russell as a man concerned only with non-issues. He was most influential in metaphysics and philosophy of mathematics, but he wrote at length about religion, politics, the "good life," and all the other questions the Greeks concerned themselves with. He was also incredibly politically active, and an early proponent of sexual liberation —something that most continentals wouldn't seriously concern themselves with until after Russell's death.

Even if you disagree with the man, or think his contributions outside of metaphysics and mathematics are minor, you have to admit that he wasn't nearly as one-note as the "analytic/continental" meme portrays him.