Continental Philosophy

Dawkins tends to attack the pseuds.

but in both cases you probably should

The division itself was invented by analytics.

>They look at the real world, what plebs!
>meanwhile I'll go wank off to Leibniz and the half of Kant that I like

see

I'm pretty sure Dawkins is just fapping to analytic philosophy and dismissing continental philosophy based on nothing but its label (which was coined by Anglos, btw).

>continentals can't into banter

youtube.com/watch?v=4hX7t5NMhsQ

...

>the religion of /phil/

Are you saying that you are not allowed to have opinions unless you acquire enough knowledge about a subject you want to have the opinions on?

Then who determines if you have enough knowledge to have an opinion?

And how does that person determine that they have enough knowledge on your knowledge to have an opinion on your ability to have an opinion on that specific subject? Does someone else have to determine that for them?

If so then how does that person determine that they have enough knowledge on the knowledge of the person that has enough knowledge, on you having enough knowledge to have an opiniom, to have an opinion themselves?

I guess they would need another person, and you can probably see where I'm going with this.

He said should, not must. It's not like either of you can stop each other amyway.

No one but Angl*s call it continental philosophy, though.

It's another Nietzschefag

Oh damn, I admit that was an oversight on my part and I apologise.

That post just caught my attention and got me thinking before I realised that it doesn't say you have to.

Why is this man so hyped ?
I seriously don't get it.

Why does he pretend to be edgy when critizising religion ?

Literally the only thing he's really edgy is about Islam.

Everything else he says are platitudes.

what's the tl;dr on this continental philosophy spiel i see pop up all the time?

Noted autistic and fuckboy Bertrand Russel with his likely also severely autistic student Wittgenstein wanted to start their own special and unique school of philosophy because they thought everyone else were emotional women because they didn't care enough about hollow abstractions. They called it analytic philosophy, about as arrogant and indirectly insulting as it can get, and everyone else continental philosophy, despite most of these thinkers having no common bond beyond being located in Europe.

It took Russel wasting his career and Witty admitting he was wrong about everything for people to realize the whole thing was a huge waste of time. Today, academic philosophers don't take notice of the distinction and the so called continentals never did.

EVERY MUSLIM IS A TERRORIST AND WANTS TO KILL EVERYBODY!!1!!

Meanwhile, my fucking heart Dr. is on call 24/7 for anybody in an emergency, and his son just wants to fit in like everybody else in high school.

wat

>EVERY MUSLIM IS A TERRORIST AND WANTS TO KILL EVERYBODY!!1!!
no one says this seriously

Not every muslim is a terrorist.

Virtually all of the terrorists are muslims.

Islam promotes evil and by providing examples of Muslims protesting against e.g. jihad, you aren't providing arguments for non-violence of Islam, only people being non-violent AGAINST the teachings of islam.

Also nice strawman.

>you are not allowed to have opinions unless you acquire enough knowledge about a subject you want to have the opinions on?

if you don't want those opinions to be uneducated

Uneducated opinions are also valueable to some extent

Why? When?

Fedora fags are a strange breed
They just want to hear someone repeat what they think and then prop that guy up as some type of intellectual

The fuck is continental philosophy?

Uneducated opinions are the beginning of educated ones. A uneducated opinon is a rehearsal or a perhaps a fresh viewpoint for someone with a educated opinion.

In no possible way could a uneducated opinion ever hold negative value

Uneducated responses are typically emotionally constructed ones. It provides valuable information concerning frame of reference.

>Everything is relative so lets try and find a common ground

This
The uneducated like Bernie so I know not to vote for him and they hate trump so I know to vote for him

>Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated
/pol/ pls

You're a dumbass.

Just because a response is emotionally constructed, doesn't guarantee it's an wrong or uneducated one.

Go back to your containment board.

I particularly don't like Islamic terrorists because most are connected or inspired by institutions of terrorism. Domestic terrorists are usually self-motivated and therefore chance accomplish relatively little because of their limited resources, vision, and reach.

Its funny because the exact opposite is true.
>le thats what politics is :^)
No.

>Bernie is the educated choice
EL OH EL

>frame of reference
Nice buzzword faggot. The only thing it provides is information about your own perception.

Right, and a while ago virtually all terrorists were anarchists.

So what?

Did Dawkins really said that or is this a fake account?

Until now, he seemed to me the most respectful towards philosophy among the wave of the anglo-positivist-youtube-atheists.

That was the impression I had after reading God's delusion: that Dawkins didn't understand philosophy on a professional leve, but at least he had some understanding and appreciation of it.

How do you know this was the case?

you sound like a retard. Do you have actual autism?

You sound like a Newfag

Has scientism gone too far?

>Continental philosophy

EVERY NAZI IS A RACIST AND WANTS TO KILL EVERYBODY!!1!!

Meanwhile, my fucking heart Dr. is on call 24/7 for anybody in an emergency, and his son just wants to fit in like everybody else in high school.

Nietzsche was a fucking retard; only a severe autist would spend is entire life arguing for "muh nihilism," and muh "nothing matters," and muh "morality is slavery."

What's even worse are all the edgy, aethetist teenagers who thinks he's so deep.

...

>spotted the numale

>analytic/continental divide literally occured because A J Ayer and Bertrand Russell thought existentialists in post-war Europe were secretly sowing the seeds of nazism with their "irrational, illogical and emotional" philosophies
>angloplebs now too ahistoric to admit they started it themselves

>literally meme scientist

>implying this is a trait exclusive to fedorafags

Christ cuck please, you're all Mongoloids.

>one exception
>meanwhile where muslims go the crime and rapes rise
I guess its pure coincidence.Its not like they are just primitive humans.

>he's a meme scientist
Technically true.

Donald Trump says it seriously. So do his serious supporters.

pic related is a PhD thesis

>Nietzsche
>nihilist

lmao

>University of Leeds

Analytic trash

Does the person who wrote this think that using obscure words makes their writing better?

This is a mess

I sort of miss my days from when I did my sociology major. I'd constantly be picking on retarded ways to say things. Someone writes "subjective experience" and I'd confusingly ask what they meant by it, if it was opposite to "objective experiences", and if there was any reason to not merely write "experience", and so on.

Obfuscation is a big part of continental philosophy nowdays, so i think yes.

>continental
>university is in England, where analytic is overwhelmingly dominant

continental philosophy refers to a type of philosophy not to geographic location. There is alot of continental philosophy going on in the US and England, don't worry. There are also analytic departments in europe. It's just that this way of doing philosophy originated in europe, mainly france.

I've never seen a coherent definition of continental philosophy. Analytic is just referring to a movement started by Russel and friends. They don't deal with different subject matter and don't really have a different approach either. There are plenty of papers written by 'analytic departments' that are just as filled with jargon.

In the 18th-19th century, there was a divide in metaphysical and epistemological conclusions which manifested itself through numerous philosophical platforms, showing a distinct difference in ideology and method between British and Western Continental Europe.
Nihilism, reason over idealism, those sort of things were primary differences.

I read Fanon and don't remember him mentioning the atmosphere around white dicks.

Continental philosophy goes through Hegel into the 20th century, with the mainly french philosophers and heidegger.

Analytic philosophy never embraced hegel, but sticked with Kant and went on from there.

Also, there is no problem with jargon if it serves its purpose, terms are clearly defined etc. Mathematics is the most jargon'd discipline ever.

I don't know, but I find it easy to differentiate between the two, say Frege's Begriffschrift and Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus. The strands both differ in subject matter and rigor; in continental philosophy terms are used with being first defined etc.

In analytic philosophy it's often how language relates to reality and logic etc.

Doesn't "subjective experience" refer to qualia? Like using the qualifier "subjective" to stress that it cannot be made objective?

You don't have to have knowledge to HAVE an opinion, you have to have knowledge to have a meaningful opinion worth expressing.

See:

Someone hasn't actually read Nietzsche

How is being a newfag negative? Unless the topic of discussion requires knowledge of memes or the boards culture, which the election of 2016 does and should not, being new to Veeky Forums is certainly better than having spent years of your life on this board.

>being new to Veeky Forums is certainly better than having spent years of your life on this board.
That's an interesting perspective

compared to this wanking fest of autism through formal system

...

>"Classical Philosophy". What kind of a Search for Truth is period-specific? Classical Chemistry? Classical Algebra? What nonsense!
Dawkins is losing it.

>Nietzsche
>morality is slavery

can't even distinguish Nietzsche and Stirner lmao

>He presented his arguments at a philosophy conference and completely embarrassed himself. They tried to explain basic modal logic to him and he just gave up and said "philosophy is dumb and we don't need it anymore".

Source on this?

And to think it was all a giant waste of time.

How acute and pedantic.

The philosophers he likes are Anglo-American philosophers