Analytic philosophy accomplishments

It took years for analytic philosophy to revive Kant thanks to Strawson and Sellars. It was originally a Humean tradition

>Continental accomplishments
Be the progenitors of literally all political ideologies that control the happenings of the world? Nazism, direct resilt of continental thought. Communism, direct result of continental thought. Liberalism, direct result of continental thought. Conservatism, direct result of continental thought. Democracy, libertarianism, capitalism, feminism, etc, etc. All the political forces that make all those grant-seeking scientist kowtow are in effect and tradition “Continental” philosophies. Although, continentals arent involve in the creation of epistemic tools, they are quite involve in the power structures that allow you or anyone else access to them. It’s quite the shame autists are still incapable of seeing what Machiavelli displayed masterfully so long ago, Politics is the first sciences of life.

What can I do with a degree in philosophy

>overthrow a few thousand years of logic via frege
>basically create type theory via russell
>basically create model theory via tarski
>both church and godel publish seminal math papers in the philosophy journal analysis mid century
>make contributions to probability via suppes, jeffrey, and others
>make contributions to information theory via dretske
>make contributions to game theory via skyrms and lewis
>make contributions to non-classical systems via booloos, kripke, priest, and many others
>make contributions to computer science, machine learning, and probabilistic models of causality via pollock, pearl, and glymour
>make contributions to category theory and basically create homotopy type theory via awodey

>Nazism, direct resilt of continental thought.
>accomplishment

In analytic philosophy since the 60's, these three fields have been in constant and fruitful cross-talk.

It's true that much of Russell and Moore's philosophy was motivated by their attempts to overcome the British Idealism of their day. And it's also true that the logical positivists had shit to sling at Heidegger and Hegel (though, of course, they didn't actually read them at all, really). And of course Frege is responding to Kant and Leibniz (although he is, in some respects, a willful misreader of both). So yes, there is a concern with the perceived excesses of the tradition. Essentially no one other than the very early Moore and Russell cared seriously at all about Hegel though. They are responding mostly to early modern concerns.

Also, although early analytic philosophy (up to Quine) maintains an analytic synthetic distinction, it is not at all equivalent to Kant's (which was, recall, formulated in terms of conceptual containment). Frege's notion of analyticity is: derivable from axioms by gap-free proof. Russell's is something like: the logical form of a sentence in first order logic. Carnap's is something like: the sentences you have to accept as a byproduct of conventionally adopting a language.

Professors in any analytic university still shit on Hegel aimlessly and tell you to avoid reading him. Most of them are incredible hacks and I don't believe for a second that this has changed in the anglosphere to any extent.

I love this post.

However, I don't think Pearl really counts as a philosopher. And it's not accurate to say that Dretske made contributions to information theory. The best you can say is that he gave a nice & useful conceptual framework for thinking about certain applications of information theory.

But anyway, great post. Everyone on this board should read all the people you posted.

There is a significant subset of analytic philosophy who teach Hegel and view him as the cornerstone of their project. I hope you aren't generalizing the experience you've had at your university.

But all of those other descriptions seem to follow from Kant's, which is: an argument that follows directly from the linguistic definitions of the major and minor premises, and requires no intuitive leap.

Of course Hegel is not taken seriously basically anywhere today in Anglophone philosophy. Did I say anything in my post to suggest otherwise?

Most analytic philosophers do think Hegel is total nonsense, but most wouldn't discourage a student from reading him, at least in my experience.

Also, Pittsburgh.

OK I just tried to write up a long post in response to this, but I really don't know enough about Kant to have an informed view, and I just remembered that Frege has different things to say about analyticity in different places (I was just thinking of Foundations of Arithmetic).

I don't think that those conceptions /follow/ from Kant's, but you're right, there is a kinship that I maybe underplayed in my original post.

I don't have anything against analytic philosophy, in fact I think the past eighty years has justly been dominated by analytics. But I think there is much more kinship between the two branches than either group of partisans wants to believe, their bifurcation into these branches much more arbitrary, and it bothers me when anyone says one division of thinkers is categorically superior to another.

I agree, and certainly didn't mean to take sides (although I am, by training, an analytic philosopher).

>communism
>continental
You unveiled the shitpost too fast.

Don't take Veeky Forums shitposting too seriously.

be honest, how much of continental philosophy in the last 50 years or so is just "gommunism right around the corner lads :DDD"

nah man, what's really in vogue right is how we live in a capitalist realism, but now the spoopy marxian ghost is haunting everything

so instead:
>"gommunism never D:"
t. mark fisher

Continential has vastly improved personal well being.

You know the thing materialism cant seem to fix?

The concepts are developed and widely used in therapy.

thread is reddit

Kant wasnt a continental
What you meant to say is that idealism should get the accomplishment of analytic philosophy coming through them

Continental was a different reaction to idealism. It did not create analytic

Coding, law, research

I sincerely see a difference in Husserl, Heidegger, and who followed after, in how they create philosophies that interpret experience, and analytic philosophy which tries to understand whatever they can about the proposition.

Just at the top of my head Im thinking of Derrida and how he focuses on what is going on when two people are trying to communicate with each other, and analytic philosophy of language trying to understand how naming works because that sets up the subject for propositions.

If these two tried to interact they would seemingly talk past one another

now you got it, that's what they seriously believe in

this guy knows. OP is a myopic stemfag sperglord