You know what's really sad

>Be a genius mind
> spend all your time on autistic analytical philosophy
> could of applied brain to actual real philosophy like continental stuff

applies for Kripke as well

lol, why would he waste time with that

>why would he waste his time with philosophy that has an actual impact on humanity and understanding the nature of reality

gee i don't know

Continentals don't care about the nature of reality. Quine actually contributed to it by restarting the discourse on metaphysics

Empty conjecture about power relations hasn't given us a better understanding of reality.

>could of
>of

hasn't given you* better understanding

By us, I meant humanity as a whole. Don't mistake the personal delusions these works have instilled in you for genuine insight.

OP, I posted about Quine not even a couple hours ago -- but I'll bite.

I give you the benefit of the doubt that you even remotely understood his paper, "On What There Is," but I want to know what you think of it?

And tell me truthfully, don't go googling answers because you won't find many.

Personally, he has only brought problems into the sphere of Metaphysics. And that's not very genius now is it?

I admit, he had some real potential to really change Metaphysics within the practice of analytics, logicism or even his own take of naturalism, but as far as we know his was undoubtedly the worst thing to happen to the field of philosophy.

Let me elaborate on Quine a little bit:

He is a naturalist in that he only believes that Metaphysics should be bound to the natural laws of the world -- ie physics and its best, most supported theories. He supposes that it is in our best interest for metaphysics to commit ourselves to these theories and to the most recent, up-to-date science we have so far to explain reality. He is a naturalist in this way. So of course, he would go on to say that abstract entities or rather things that are not physically present should be rejected in our ontological commitments since they are not remotely related to science.

But, then, here comes the bomb shell. How the fuck do we explain numbers? Physics comes down to mathematics because the theories and laws are all derived from mathematics. But then we have to commit ourselves to an abstract entity like numbers? Because what are numbers? Physically, they're just lead on paper or pixels on a screen -- that shouldn't fall into Quine's conception of metaphysical concerns, but he makes the stupid exception that we need to, but this really just takes away his credibility.

And by the way, no actual philosopher in any university that has published papers would even say Quine was a genius -- the general consensus among academics seems to be that Quine really just messed up Metaphysics. He fucked everyone over, basically, because of one stupid idea around how we go about making a way to commit ourselves to certain ontological or metaphysical things.

He was certainly right about one thing though. Positivism is an untenable position in any way imaginable, and we should all be glad that he wrote "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism".

what...Quine is probably the most celebrated American philosopher of the 20th century

>>Willard Van Orman Quine (/kwaJn/; June 25, 1908 – December 25, 2000) (known to intimates as "Van")[1] was an American philosopher and logician in the analytic tradition, recognized as "one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century."[2] From 1930 until his death 70 years later, Quine was continually affiliated with Harvard University in one way or another, first as a student, then as a professor of philosophy and a teacher of logic and set theory, and finally as a professor emeritus who published or revised several books in retirement. He filled the Edgar Pierce Chair of Philosophy at Harvard from 1956 to 1978. A 2009 poll conducted among analytic philosophers named Quine as the fifth most important philosopher of the past two centuries.[3][4] He won the first Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy in 1993 for "his systematical and penetrating discussions of how learning of language and communication are based on socially available evidence and of the consequences of this for theories on knowledge and linguistic meaning."[5] In 1996 he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for his "outstanding contributions to the progress of philosophy in the 20th century by proposing numerous theories based on keen insights in logic, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of language."[6]
>your right though, academics think he is a dumbass /s

Every one of his mentees, those of whom finished their PhDs under his supervision, went on to totally debase his arguments. Cmon. They made a career out of picking apart every way his thinking was wrong for metaphysics.

>"Kripke was labelled a prodigy, having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine, and mastered the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school. He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17, and had it published a year later. "

Literally me

>How the fuck do we explain numbers?
Indeed. physics is just numbers with explicit units, while math is just numbers not associated explicitly to units.

That's my point. He says we need to commit ourselves to an abstract entity like numbers -- while also saying that we need to avoid those very abstract entities because they don't fit into the naturalist paradigm.

He counters his own argument.

>He counters his own argument.

I am sure he was not simple enough to write books and books only to have two sentences stated by you topple the worth of his existence.

How can anything ever occur or be known, that isnt 'natural'?

Define: abstract

the concept, as everything, is pulled from nature, numbers are as abstract as lines drawn in the sand.

I believe Quine believed set could be taken to be actual entities I the natural world. Therefore, to the extent that ordinal arithmetic, algebra, etc., can be built up from set theory, he can account for math (or at least that what he'd probably claim).

Quine is obviously not a naturalist if he believes we should be ontologically committed to the existence of abstract entities and he never said said we need to avoid abstract entities. He said philosophy should be concurrent with science and perhaps its "abstract" branch, but not completely subsumed by it. Sounds like you're just bad at reading or didn't read him at all. I'd assume the latter

Being decisively wrong is surely better than admitting you don't know how to be right.

You know who else was wrong......Kant, but you wouldn't see people call him a "dumbass" or that he wasn't a genius

What, and people didn't do that for Plato?

For Socrates?

Power relations isn't continental, it's another species.
>our best interest
Garbage philosophy.

Any philosophy that makes this kind of value assertion is unforgivable.

>You know who else was wrong......Kant,

But Kant also made like 10,000 claims and to say he is wrong is to imply that you are aware of which claims you mean he was wrong with claiming