Why are analytics so dumb?

Why are analytics so dumb?

Attached: 220px-35._Portrait_of_Wittgenstein.jpg (220x306, 18K)

It only seems that way, because you're too dumb to have spent the time reading and understanding them. Keep listening to what Veeky Forums tells you, I'm sure you're getting an objective unbiased account of how things are on a board that leans heavily continental and fucking bombed the math section of their SAT

They're autists. Wittgenstein was brilliant, though

all bachelors are unmarried bro brainlets just cant understand shit this deep

their topics are so abstract that their brains become mangled messes. couple that with the fact that most don't have any established methodology and their brains rot.

Read Two Dogmas of Empiricism and say that again

Seems like bullshit if you just focus on something that seems tautological, but the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements reveal something interesting and important about different kinds of facts about the world. Besides, that's fucking Kant, who predates the analytic/continental divide. Guess philosophy just isn't for you

>he distinction between analytic and synthetic statements
ISHYGDDT

Yep, if you can't understand that it's no wonder you're so lost

define analyticity

>I can only report what I see, not that what I see is true, and not that truth is something undefeatable, and hence is socially constructed and agreed upon within a certain set of rules that we adjust according to what works
Now you know all the analytic philosophy you need to know

Most analytics are exactly what continentals criticize them of being, autismo puzzle makers playing with logic and words. Most continentals spew fancy obscure nonsense. Both sides are right to shit on each other

Complete that sentence and you got it babe

What a bunch of nonsense. We need to start from first principles
1) Existence exists
2) People have consciousness
3) Therefore taxation is theft

Attached: aynrand.jpg (519x494, 42K)

I'm not sure whether this is a shitpost, because it's both absurd and an accurate representation of Rand's worldview.

Attached: 1514433069013.jpg (680x680, 25K)

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Attached: 11-ayn-rand.w529.h529.2x.jpg (1058x1058, 55K)

no, that's structuralism which is a continuation of the continental tradition.

That's all Aristotelians, from Aristotle to Aquinas to Brentano to Rand.

Extraversion.

truth in virtue of meaning

Continental "philosophers" are just literary critics with big egos

You literally have nothing to say. But it's cool. You're right. I don't want you to change your mind. I want you to wallow in your own judgmental hell, afraid to travel anywhere, afraid to meet new people, afraid to better yourself or seek any education. Your entire life is controlled by anger and fear. Keep doing what you're doing.

Attached: ....png (640x320, 147K)

Platonics: You can't know anything!
Aristotelians: You can only know things!

Did anyone actually find something reasonable between these extremes?

Attached: 70uwc.jpg (450x373, 26K)

They tried to transcend nihilism by reducing the problems of life to problems of language. What is life but a series of yes or no questions? 1 and 0 to be exact. It is demonstrated in our DNA even. We are at the limits of positivism now; but we are unable to overcome. Computers are just a metaphor and not a solution to this problem.

Did I imply a contradiction? Something can be both absurd and accurate. This only makes intent difficult to discern.

Attached: 24232389_439095196492309_7341504169378628231_n.jpg (672x737, 91K)

How are they extremes? They are both the same thing pointing towards the transcendental unknowable.

>extremes

Attached: 20180325062135_1.png (642x664, 923K)