Can we all just agree that the analytics ruined philosophy...

Can we all just agree that the analytics ruined philosophy? What was supposed to be an enrichment of the soul has degenerated into pure autism.

yes, 99% of this board will agree

Dont know im not a philosophycally inclined person.
What do you mean with analytics ?

I would personally agree but then again it would be impossible to just dismiss most of the criticisms analytics have brought forth against the more recent continental tradition

Can we all just agree that continentals ruined literary theory? What was supposed to be an enrichment of the soul has degenerated into pure autism.

As a philosophical practice,[2][3] it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]

sounds like it saved pshilosophy from degeneracy

>philosophy was supposed to be an enrichment of the soul

>apologizing for rigor and clarity

no

leave poetry to the poets

>Anglo definition of anglo conception of philosophy generated by Anglo culture
An exercise for every non Anglo user ITT: read the wikipedia page on metaphysics in your mother tounge, then read the English one. You'll notice the difference.

Its not a definition, its a description. Also what is your point ? You semm to imply that the description is inaccurate. Just say that instead of being a pseudo teacher.

philosophy is all about writing whatever you ""feel"" is true based on no real evidence, calling other people retards for feeling something else, again with no evidence, then sitting back and letting the lmao0citations roll in

science was pretty shit 2400 years ago when chumps like aristotle would just write a page of fanfiction about how bouyancy works because "the element of air has a natural place above the element of water", and the stars are actually embedded in giant spheres of a fifth element named aether
and then of course there are no testable hypotheses, just trust him bro he's totally right it makes SO MUCH SENSE

philosophy is still like that undeveloped 2400 year old science. "just trust me bro, my interpretation makes so much sense" x1,000,000 voices

>obscurantist babbling
>enriching the soul

kek

For example
>English wikipedia
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.[1] It has two branches – cosmology and ontology. Traditional metaphysics seeks to answer, in a "suitably abstract and fully general manner", the questions:[2]

What is there?
And what is it like?
>Italian wikipedia
Metaphysics is that part of philosophy that, going beyond the contingent elements of sensible experience, [1] deals with the aspects considered most authentic and fundamental of reality, according to the widest and most universal perspective possible. [2] It aims at the study of the entities "as such" in their entirety, [3] unlike the particular sciences which, generally, [4] deal with their individual empirical determinations, according to specific points of view and methodologies.

again, what is your point ? youre just changing the subject

so thats why i dont like philosophy, thanks user

>t. brainlets

I like Martha Nussbaum

This may be the worst post I have ever seen

ad hominems from the philosophers, thats a really nice philosophy for discussion with other people, dont you think ?

Kek the only argument you retards have is to act like you’re smarter than anyone, no arguments, just name-calling. You have no leg to stand on and deep down you know it. Face it you’d be better off living your life out of a horoscope.

bet you don't get poetry either

you just proved his point

Analytics? More like ANALytics hahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Bet you that guy's right though

Later Greeks already ruined philosophy with their autism, anglos can't even ruin things properly.

woah, never considered that it just like...comes from the soul, man... what an argument...

i have literal diagnosed autism
my brain is a superior more-evolved version of the human brain, immune to the weaknesses that cause it to see meaning or beauty where none truly exists

also i failed high school english classes while doing half days at the high school and commuting to a local college to get 4.0s in math and physics

>What was supposed to be an enrichment of the soul has degenerated into pure autism.
The practice of philosophy is and was always due to a love of knowledge -- not to necessarily enrich your soul. You clearly care less about that than feeling enlightened

It really just sounds like you want others to spoon feed you the significance of philosophy, most fields I'm science use analytic philosophy.

Why live, user? Why live when you're incapable of comprehending beauty, when so much of human experience is impossible for you to access?

Phenomenologically speaking I suppose it's a bit like trying to describe a Pollock to a blind man. Trust me, you're missing out.

Take the experimental philosophy pill OP.

>retains the rigor and analytical clarity while tackling issues of human flourishing and meaningful life
>tries to make philosophy contiguous with other realms of human thought
>respects laymen and non-philosophers' intuitions without devolving into an ideological free-for-all
>brings in methods from empirical science to take the place of incoherent continental babbling

>appeal to intuition

any language that moves us in a direction that allows for human flourishing is objectively good. autistics need not apply

>brings in methods from empirical science
>retains the rigor and analytical clarity

whyyy

The practice of philosophy is and was always due to a love of knowledge -- not to necessarily enrich your soul. You clearly care less about that than feeling enlightened

>Actually, it would not be out of place for me to reject it, as our intellectuals do. I could then tell a clever storyL I could claim that a gust of the North Wind blew her over the rocks where she was playing with Pharmaceia; and once she was killed that way people said she had been carried off by Boreas--or was it, perhaps, from the Areopagus? The story is also told that she was carried away from there instead. Now, Phaedrus, such explanations are amusing enough, but they are a job for a man I cannot envy at all. He'd have to be far too ingenious and work too hard--mainly because after that he will have to go on and give a rational account of the form of the Hippocentaurs, and then of the Chimera; and a whole flood of Gorgons and Pegasuses and other monsters, in large numbers and absurd forms, will overwhelm him. Anyone who does not believe in them, who wants to explain them away and make them plausible by means of some sort of rough ingenuity, will need a great deal of time.

>But I have no time for such things; and the reason, my friend, is this. I am still unable, as the Delphic inscription orders, to know myself; and it really seems to me ridiculous to look into other things before I have understood that. That is why I do not concern myself with them. I accept what is generally believed, and as I was just saying, I look not into them but into my own self: Am I a beast more complicated and savage than Typhon, or am I a tamer, simple animal with a share in a divine and gentle nature? But look, my friend--while we were talking, haven't we reached the tree you were taking us to?

Do you hate philosophy or are you just a retard?

>The practice of philosophy is and was always due to a love of knowledge
Wrong.

Who's appealing to intuition? In fact, experimental philosophers who are interested in meta-philosophy investigate how intuitions vary with across sociological contexts and individual psychologies. Some argue that intuitions have no place in philosophical discourse and have no special metaphysical or epistemological properties, others think intuitions are ultimately cognitive biases but recognize that inquiry must stop somewhere.

Anyway, how do you suggest philosophy proceed without any reference to intuitions?

Why not? If I ask a question like "does being moral lead to happiness?", why shouldn't I create a study that tries to see if there's a correlation between one's moral values and subjective well-being?

Why shouldn't one try to go out into the world to discover what human beings are really like, instead of philosophize from the armchair?

because the things you are trying to study are subjective, you may as well throw out an arbitrary conclusion based on your definitions of things

Also, rational and logical thought based on evidence is is not somehow better or more truthful than irrational or arbitrary thought

nice subtext reading there you pretentious faggot

>No arguments, just name calling
How ironic

Cumcumber

intuition is the foundation of all philosophy, math, and logic

trying formulating a logical system with axioms that don't rely on intuition

or, explain to me how you can justify the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle without intuition

read husserl dipshit

Analytic philosophy is not philosophy, it's formal logic masquerading as metaphysics

there is a lot of feeling in science. Scientists manipulate dat and resist changing paradigms when the current ones start crumbling down

>I'm superior because I'm dysfunctional.

Literally couldn't function on a ancient community because he wouldn't know to convey information that is not brute data and would be killed on a ploy/ostracized by everyone because he just couldnt take social cues and understand subtexts and passive-aggressive behavior

Ah, the tismo never upsets me.

not an argument

>philosophy is all about writing whatever you ""feel"" is true based on no real evidence, calling other people retards for feeling something else

Imagine being so block headed you can't give value to things that are not raw data that you got from your questionable empirical method.

Is it just your tismo leading you to think like this ?

You look like an amerimutt that actually paid attention to your Cold War tier backwarded education endocrination.

What scares me the most is that your generation of " whateaver flavor of the month 'science man' phonies" followers is actually going to decide the fate of your country.

>HEY GUISE, HOW ABOUT WE EXTERMINATE HALF OF THE COUNTRY TO CUT COSTS ? ITS ***SCIENTIFICALLY*** PROVEN IT CUTS COSTS

Analytical philosophy was a necessary negation of the excesses of absolute idealism. But in the last few decades the insufficiencies of anglo empiricism have mounted to the point where they had to restart metaphysics, and are re-discovering Hegel. The continentals will have the last laugh.

>an enrichment of the soul
then there is literally no difference between religion and philosophy. this is the shittiest meme tier interpretation of philosophy I've ever heard.

well now you've gone and embarrassed yourself, you didn't need to do that.

ITT: People who need to read at least pic related before spouting off about a tradition they are completely ignorant of

>reducing religion to theology

>implying theology is designed to enrich your soul

oh I misread and didn't see the "then" in your post

Not only the analytics, my friend. The frenchmen as well, when, in reaction to purely technical pseudo-philosophical ranting decided to go into just shameless ranting made out of flabby arguments.

Half of these posts are just
>Philosophy is not meant to enrich the soul
>Put forth an alternative? Whaaat noo

Define "human flourishing"

>Also, rational and logical thought based on evidence is is not somehow better or more truthful than irrational or arbitrary thought
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew boy, gonna need an argument for that.

>there is literally no difference between religion and philosophy
That would be correct. Most philosophy is just circle-jerking and worshiping "Great Men" like Kant or Aristotle or whatever.

>philo-=love
>-sophos=wisdom

hmmmmm....

>someone wrote this thinking they had everything figured out

haha oh man I just watched this episode an hour ago

This a thousand times

>read husserl

Why would I read that failure when I can read Frege who actually considers what the other user is getting at?

Continentals, not even once

Knowledge isnt wisdom. Thats what the other user was trying to point out to you

How embarrassing

If you want to go read poetry go read poetry

If you care about truth, quit your bitching and learn how to argue

What's this user talking about?