Lol a girl could beat you up brah

>lol a girl could beat you up brah
does this refute nietzsche's philosophy?

Are analytics really as bad as they seem?

Pretty fucking bad. Read Collingwood's Autobiography, the part about his time as a teacher of philosophy at Oxford and his experience of the British philosophical milieu that was giving birth to Russell's analytic philosophy among Anglos. It's telling that Collingwood, one of the only good Anglo readers of German philosophy at the time, basically does not interact at all with the nascent analytic tradition. Because it had nothing to do with it, despite thinking it had surmounted it.

They're basically a bunch of pedantic cunts eager to dismiss prior philosophy that they barely read, and jerk each other off over it. When logic comes along, they jump on logicism like a bandwagon. When positivism and dogmatic empiricism come along, they jump on them like bandwagons.

The Anglo-Analytic "style" right from these beginnings up until quite recently was to have a monolithic, preconceived, and disastrously unreflective epistemology (formal logic), hold other philosophical systems up to it just long enough to show that they don't fit into the arbitrary rules, and then take pleasure in shitting on them for it. Fair claims of French and German obscurantism just emboldened Anglos in being cunts, and made them dig in their heels.

what do they even seem like

i don't know what Veeky Forums thinks about analytics so i can't answer

Sometimes there's interest, but it's mostly dislike to outright hatred. I've found it really hard to find an analytical philosopher that isn't in some way cancerous or poisonous, whether it be misinterpreting Wittgenstein, that whole p-Zombie shit (or any other sci fi esque crap), claiming all other philosophers are continentals and then claiming all continentals are obscurantists and so on. Weirdly the least cancerous so far is DFW.

also bertrand russell was a literal cuck, lest we forget

Yes. It's like Platonism and epistemology to the nth degree.

What's worse is they presume you know nothing about analytics if one dares criticize it.

These hacks will go down in history as the 20th/21st century Descartes.

>I've found it really hard to find an analytical philosopher that isn't in some way cancerous or poisonous

Witty is great.

The analytic interpretation of Witty is not so great.

Witty is a philosopher of language, analytics is at least in my interpretation a branching-off of language philosophy that replaces language with symbolic logic and precise language.

It's cancer.