Is analytic philosophy like the reductionist paradigm of sciences and continental philosophy like the holistic paradigm...

this isn't true

t. Derrideleuze

t. Russell before Wittgenstein

Continental Philosophy
>Maybe our words and ideas are culturally relative and we should investigate their origins and contingency?

Analytic Philosophy
>1. WORDS = CONCEPTS
>2. CONCEPTS = LOGICAL
>3. CONCEPT A + CONCEPT B = CONCEPT C
> 4. CONCEPT C IS SYNONYMOUS WITH CONCEPT X, ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE DICTIONARY DEFINITION
>THEREFORE, A + B = C = X
>THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS IS AN ATHEIST BOURGEOIS TECHNOCRACY. MAJOR IN ENGINEERING!

>MAJOR IN ENGINEERING!
You overstepped.

>reductionist paradigm

nigga I challenge you to present me a paradigm that's not reductionist

its been 13 years since Veeky Forums was created and the majority of posts STILL consist of blatant strawmen

it's been 13 years since you were created and both your parents STILL consist of blatant transmen

you're still here, it means you like blatant strawmen, either genuinely or in the stockholm syndrome-sense

if someone complained that the majority of people are assholes would it be appropriate to say that "since they still exist in the world clearly they like assholes, either genuinely or in the stockholm syndrome-sense"

is it not possible that perhaps it is the MINORITY which provides the motive rather than the majority? that they exist for the non-assholes?

Is Wittgenstein an analytic?
yes, obv

Is Wittgenstein reductionist?
no, obv

end of thread

don't be so defensive user I like blatant strawmen too

if youre going to respond to a post asking a question w/o addressing the question just dont ty

no

Nice strawmen.

this poster is irl mad about posts

Analytic philosophy = reddit.

The late Wittgenstein is Continental
The project of Analytical Philosophy ended, when it was found out to be impossible to build a ideal language of logic. Since the end of this project there is no real difference, between them both, so the terms are obsolet.

the holistic paradigm you retard

>The late Wittgenstein is Continental
all of his writings can be considered analytic

the fact you believe "analytic philosophy" only refers to the project undertaken by mathematicians in the early 20th century is absurdly narrow

this ofc brings us to the main point of contention: defining analytic. as you definite it, ofc "analytic" philosophy is dead. But your defn is also far from standard use

Most label him as analytic, because they don't understand his work, while it is right that he was still agianst metaphysics (which is stupid since you obviously need to set your premises somewhere and by definition doing so is a kind of metaphysics) and he still has many pragmatic elements, the concepts he devoloped (e.g. Sprachspiele) are already so far away from the original idea of analytic philosphy, that it would be a balant mislabeling. The standard use dosen't interest me, since many do this mislabeling on porpurse, as someone with some knowledge in mathematics, i can tell you neither Frege nor Russel would have ever seen those people in their tradition, they only claim this to make them seem grounded in anything, so rigorous like formal logic and mathematica, which seems foundamentaly dishonest to me.

Continental philosophy doesn't exist. Unless you somehow put Focault and Aquinas in the same basket, by being completely retarded.

Heidegger is a major Aristotle and Aquinas scholar, and Foucault said that Heidegger was one of the most influential philosophers in his life, a major defining figure against whom his (Foucault's) whole work has been a response. Kant's relationship with Aristotelian metaphysicians like Aquinas is obvious, and Foucault also described his entire philosophical project as a Kantian one.

How is that not a tradition?

>Heidegger is a major Aristotle and Aquinas scholar
Being a scholar for them hardly makes his philosphy aristotelian thomistic.
>Foucault said that Heidegger was one of the most influential philosophers in his life
So was H.G. Wells for Chesterton
>Kant's relationship with Aristotelian metaphysicians like Aquinas is obvious
Yes, a complete rejection of all the premises and conclusions.
> Foucault also described his entire philosophical project as a Kantian one.
Which would make it 100% at odds with Aristotle and Aquinas.

How the fuck is that supposed to be a tradition? Are you fucking retarded?

One bigger influence on him was Nietzsche and while some claim Heidegger only sanatized Nietzsches work (wrongly). If you are a decent educated philosopher, you will see in his work, that for example the influences of crictical theory(Frankfurt School Marxism) and british enlightenment thinkers are far greater, than Heidegger and Nietzsche.

By this logic i can proof, that both schools are the same since Kant was influenced by Leibnitz and so was Frege.

this is a crazy late response but i totally disagree:

Frege, Russell, and Whitehead do not define the Analytic tradition. This should be obvious, but formal logic predates all 3 of them. They ventured to provide a foundation for formal logic which would be described as a BRANCH or ASPECT of analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein's original work in philosophy was of this sort, and with the Tractatus he felt that he had "closed the book" so to speak on this sort of philosophizing. The "quest" for foundational math would be finally ended by Godel some years later with his famous proofs.

My point in mentioning all of this is that by your defn of analytic philosophy ("to build a ideal language of logic") is totally dead at this point as you correctly said, BUT analytic philosophy persists yet. to describe someone like Quine or Searle as a continental is ridiculous. In LW's words, the purpose of philosophy is elucidation. That is the analytic tradition, NOT the ideal language, but elucidation.

The purpose of the ideal logic was to ELIMINATE the need for elucidation or clarification. That goal is dead, but the striving for personal clarity continues and that is the tradition that many philosophers still pursue.

>Aristotle inverts Plato to produce hylomorphism! There's no Classical Greek tradition if they don't agree with one another in everything, and merely annotate their predecessors!
OK.

>Being a scholar for them hardly makes his philosphy aristotelian thomistic.
..So? Heidegger isn't dialogically engaged with Aristotle, the man who occupied decades of his life and work, or with Kant, whose critical framework occupied decades of his life and work, because he's not a fucking orthodox transcendental Thomist?

Do you fucking know where, and by whom, Heidegger was educated? Why don't you Google a bit?

>How the fuck is that supposed to be a tradition?
"How the fuck is St. Paul in the Judeo-Christian tradition?!" Dunno, bro! Maybe because your definition of "tradition" is so restrictive as to be meaningless and not to warrant its own word? Are you confusing it with "unbroken dogmatic transmission" or something? Read Gadamer, or hell, just read Lovejoy or something.

Ironically, while I am arguing that continental philosophy is "thicker" and more dialogically engaged with its tradition than analytic philosophers tend to be, you are proving that you have no concept of thick, experiential undergirding for systems of thought. It's almost as if.. you're.. an analytic! Or something! And you think that all thought is lucid and conceptual, and don't have patience for architectonics or discursive formations!

Oh look, Foucault again:
"But truly to escape Hegel involves an exact
appreciation of the price we have to pay to detach ourselves from him. It
assumes that we are aware of the extent to which Hegel, insidiously perhaps,
is close to us; it implies a knowledge, in that which permits us to think
against Hegel, of that which remains Hegelian. We have to determine the
extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed
against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us."

Sure, and Heidegger was probably more indebted to Husserl than others, but you don't have to pick one Sufi-esque philosophical pir to worship unconditionally. Critical (in the colloquial sense) Kant scholarship has shown Kant's debt to contemporary digests and abridgments many times, and his occasionally lousy familiarity with figures like Aristotle. Doesn't mean he's not engaged in the tradition.

They are, to some extent. I wouldn't be a very good continental apologist if I said that Frege wasn't engaged with the history of the philosophy of logic, or with Kant, or with whatever undercurrents and obliquely glimpsed weltanschauungen impelled him to think in certain ways.

Again, the analytic mindset: "If I can prove some kind of commensurability between these two objects, I can categorise them as OBJECT-CLASS-8377-B and my work is done. BEEP, BOOP! FEELINGS ARE JUST CHEMICALS IN THE BRAIN, MAN!"

The difference is that continental philosophy appreciates and develops its inescapable historical debts.

So you are just retarded

By disagreeing with me, you have nullified any tradition of discourse between us, and by definition I can no longer understand or react to anything you've said. I'm sorry.

There is no genuinely holistic paradigms you retard, it's like a kid saying "I can fly", proceeds not to fly, then thinks he flew anyway.