Why do people give continental philosophy so much credit when it's obviously full of shit? Seriously...

I literally just marathoned the first two chapters of Grammatology. Derrida's """philosophy""" is nauseating

>marathoned
this is why is totally right and you're a mongoloid

*saves image as*

Analytic "philosophy" is literally masturbating about logic. Nothing more. It doesn't even mean anything. There is no wisdom to be gained from it. It's empty.

This

There is no such thing as "continental" and "analytic" philosopy. No relevant philosopher has ever called himself either a "continental" or an "analytic" philosopher. It is a distinction which exists purely in the minds of halfwit philosophy students who are incapable of thinking, but love to categorize things.

sorry, I'm drunk. It would be more correct to say "halfwit philosophy scholars", though there's not much distinction.

>Schopenhauer
>continental or sophist

The bait is too strong,read WAWAR.

I don't want to say it, but it is leftist academia

What's wrong with being leftist? Both conservatives and progressives say retarded shit. That's not the issue here, /pol/

Analytic Philosophy is just as dominated by Left Wingers, only people who have never been in University think otherwise

If anything there's more room today for the Right in Continental Philosophy, Analytic Political Philosophy generally takes Liberalism as a truism for granted

>liberalism
>left wing

lol is your problem with continentals that they include things like "history" and "language" as opposed to being about "pure logic"?

like come on

he probably means amerillard "liberalism" (which still isn't exactly leftist, but whatever)

Hey I know, but to our dumb American friends it may as well be Kropotkin

>haha i "marathoned" two chapters of derrida
>haha look how hard i tried
literally kill yourself. i don't even have to bring up the translation meme, that's how easy you are

It's pretty easy to spot Amerifags because they always make this post. go jerk off to Thomas Nagel, he's more up your alley.

>Continental """"philosophers""""

>Continentials: dude i just smoked this joint and what if, like, nothing is even real lmao
>pseuds: wow, really makes u think.

>Analytics: Check out this ironclad proof, I think you'll find it has surprising implications for certain ethical and legal systems.
>pseuds: lol, what the fuck is this logic shit? Looks boring as fuck bro, stop wasting your time and focus on the REAL shit.

This, every other answer is just bullshit. People who reduce the entirety of philosophy into two categories are mentally retarded.

>P1: CONTINENTALS smoke JOINTS and make STACEY think about NIHILISM
>P2: You do MODAL LOGIC and FANTASIZE about having a PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIE SEX SLAVE
>P3:If P1 and P2 are true, then continental philosophy is better than analytic """"philosophy""""
>C: Continental philosophy is better than analytic """"philosophy""""

Now that's what I call an ironclad proof, my man.

This is so fucking stupid it almost hurts. I bet you tried to study economy but failed miserably. I met a guy once who tried to get in the best economy univeristy in berlin and failed miserably. Filled with angrer he kept making fun of people involved with literary and philosophical studies. He died in a car accident. I don't miss that idiot.

Most of the time I don't understand the distinction.

Who was the tallest philosopher in history?

tons of analytics love kant; the supposed split didn't happen 'til he was long dead

The distinction itself is proof of how retarded analytic philosophy is :^)

the split is literally just a way of distinguishing the epistemologies which came out of british rationalism/empiricism and the continentals who were more concerned with phenomenology. It isn't a competition, but people seem to think the hume-kant antagonism has defined the development of western philosophy ever since when in reality plenty of contemporary thinkers draw from both traditions.

Actually both continental and analytic philosophers are garbage.

/thread

analytic philosophy is the foundation of computers and programming

...

>google it
>its true

Christ, he truly is a God among men

Sam please

>manlet jealous of a true intellectual giant

>Sam "Reddit" Harris
>philosopher

What's your point? If you build an logical argument on false premises then it's open for other philosophers to challenge those premises. Cucktinentals would either not spell out their premises or just assume the conclusion and spend 300 pages reasoning in circles.

:^)

I don't have a point. It was a shitpost saying that analytics are redditors who can't get laid.

My actual opinion is that I'm a retard who can't into anything objective and scientific, but have an absolute unhealthy fetish for the crisp, clean minimalist aesthetic of mathematics, logic etc. and deeply envy those who are capable of working those systems.

That said, I think the analytic approach can't account for non-scientific truth, of which literature is the primary domain, so anyone who truly values literature should be able to see how the two approaches can't and shouldn't exist in isolation.

If you can't understand Hannah Arendt, then you might be clinically retarded. Please visit a nearby GP asap.

I'm pretty sure Sam Harris isn't 7'3. This screenshot is referencing the Sam Harris who is the tallest man in Australia and not the philosopher.

Fuck off Christfag

>lol a girl could beat you up brah
t. every analytic "proof" ever

iswydt

"marathoned"
Fucking kill yourself. You have no ice what philosophy is

I believe it is the other way around. Namely that continental philosophers are the modern day equivalent to "actual philosophers" and the analytics are the Sophists. When you think about how much of an emphasis the analytic school puts on semantics, it almost renders any philosophical argument into a battle of language instead of ideas. This is a key sophist trait; that the truth value matters not in an argument, but it is whether one can sway an audience with clever plays on words that matters. Sophists, just as philosophers working within the analytic tradition today, place too much importance on rhetoric.