Looking for advice from analytic philosophy connoisseurs

I'd skip Ayer, he's a rehashed Carnap who was late to leave logical positivism

If you want a survey in the history of analytic philosophy, read "Sense and Reference," On Denoting, some GE Moore, the Tractatus, some Carnap if you like, the Investigations, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," then read Kripke on rigid designators, some David Lewis on possible world realism, some Putnam on natural kinds

I wouldn't do this. I'd focus on a particular area that interests you and read the seminal texts in that subspecialty, find out which philosophers you like, read their stuff, and read the people they cite.

I dropped out because I don't want to be an academic and was sick of the bureaucracy involved in the phd process. I mainly went to grad school because I didn't know what else to do upon graduating and wanted to continue studying philosophy and literature on a more personalized track, fully funded and with a stipend at that. I don't regret my decisions at all.
I should mention that I went to grad school for English, though, which was another BA of mine. My work focused on the representational role of the imagination in Hume and Kant (Sacha Golob wrote some interesting things on this topic a couple of years ago) and applied it to Blake's poetry (primarily, but the end goal was to expand on Romantic English poetry in general, didn't get that far into it, though).

i fucking roared

frege. or kant, desu, bc it's hard to grasp the analytic/synthetic distinction or a priori/a posteriori distinction without having read him. but reading frege will help w quantifiers n propositions generally

Here is my short guide to Wittgenstein:

pastebin.com/9pUqMKnk

It is yet to be updated but it should be good enough for now.

Be wary of all interpretations you read. I am yet to add figures like Cavell into the guide but it should be good enough for now.

>reading anal autistic trash

Can you explain to me how exactly Kant felt representation worked and how it involved acts of mental judgment?

I can never figure it out from reading him

>I've been teaching philosophy for 15 years and never really read anything "analytic", j

>mfw I'm not even 25 and I know more philosophy than a lecturer

brainlets cant compete

Aristotle

Sure, but can you narrow that down? Maybe tell me what you do understand? there's so much that goes into that relation that I could write you pages upon pages trying to pin it down. Kant dedicates quite a lot of space in the first critique to the relation of representation and judgments. Do you understand the analytic/synthetic distinction?

I guess in short I could say that for Kant, we can only know something by general representations. A judgment is relating concepts together, and concepts are just predicates of possible judgments. Both concepts and representations can be either a priori or empirical, what is at stake for Kant is the source of the content. With judgments, it has more to do with the justification rather than the source of the content.
So, on the "pure concepts of the understanding of categories" you have synthesis (putting together concepts in a judgment) with aspects of an object given in sensibility (which conforms to representations in our mind). What is given to us in sensibility is spread out over space and time, and in order to know the world through that we must be able to discern data and make associations. Imagination puts together sensible content guided by functions of understanding in order to make possible a field in which we can form empirical concepts and judge on the basis of.
Sorry if that got a little off from what you were asking but specifying your issue more may help

No that's helpful, thanks, sorry I wasn't specific enough. I don't know enough to even be sure what I'm asking, really.

I think I'm most interested in how the imagination works in particular:
>Imagination puts together sensible content guided by functions of understanding in order to make possible a field in which we can form empirical concepts and judge on the basis of.

Basically I never understand how Kant moves from the bare possibility of intuiting in space+time, plus judgments, to the sort of freeform combinatorics of the active mind in its constantly picturing and putting things together. Or whether Kant even really talks about this?

>empirical concepts

rationalist not even once

Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations

Wilfrid Sellars - Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind

Anscombe - Intention

Donald Davidson - Agent, Action, & Reason (collection of essays)

David Lewis - On the Plurality of Worlds

Richard Rorty - Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

Robert Brandom - Making it Explicit

John McDowell - Mind & World

Then what? I've already read Aristotle.

Note : I'm studying Phil @ Pittsburgh so I'm pretty biased w/ the works I'm interested in. I really enjoy figures like Rorty, Sellars, and Brandom for engaging with figures that were shunned by the earlier analytic tradition.

I'm not the biggest fan of a lot of the early analytic stuff, really enjoy pragmatism and the intersect between ""neo""-pragmatism and analytic philosophy. Not a huge fan of consequentialists like Hare and Sidgwick, although Parfit was a fucking genius.

Start with the greeks

Jk

Have you read peincipa mathmatica?

I meant principa

Refer to the Threefold Synthesis.You have the synthesis of apprehension in intuition (senses): An intuition contains a manifold (parts) and in order to represent the manifold as one, we must run through and connect it. You can think of an Empirical version, where parts of the perception of an apple, in order to have unity in intuition I must first run through and take together the manifoldness. And a "pure" version: In space and time, we have pure manifold abstracted from all sensation, made possible by pure synthesis of apprehension.
The synthesis of reproduction in imagination: We must reproduce past representations and combine with the present representation, this happens through the imagination. Empirical laws of association must have a priori ground. So, the transcendental synthesis of the imagination: pure synthesis of apprehension depends on pure synthesis of imagination.
The synthesis of recognition in a concept (understanding): The concept consists solely in this consciousness of unity of synthesis. The concept is serving as a rule that is being followed in the successive iterations. Unity of concept - unity of consciousness. One consciousness that unifies the manifold that has been successively intuited, then reproduced, into one representation.

Short version copied directly from my notes: (1) Intellectual synthesis (apperception): the rule is what is required for this as appearances. (2) transcendental synthesis of imagination: in its a priori work, the imagination is giving us the unity of time through representing one appearance as following another according to this rule (3) synthesis of apprehension: Only through the category of causality that gives the representation of time itself.

>I've been teaching philosophy for 15 years
>never really read anything "analytic"

no lad you've just been teaching "muh feels" and arbitrary ramblings for 15 years

No, but I do have Our Knowledge of the External World sitting next to me if that is worth something.

I'm reading Reasons and Persons right now. Any advice? Parfit has really blown my mind since I've started reading him and made me consider going into philosophy as part of my post-grad studies.

undergrad though, right?

OP, did you find this useful?

Yessir,undecided on doing grad. Most say don't, and oftentimes I'm inclined to agree. But I am very interested and I've had some great talks with profs/grad students in the department here that have been very insightful.

I've already read the first part where he deals with self defeating theories (the classic prisoners dilemma experiment), so idk how much help I could be, I apologize

right, but saying "I'm studying phil at Pittsburgh," given Pitt's lack of prestige as an undergrad institution and extreme prestige as a philosophy grad school, seems a bit misleading

nevertheless, I'm glad you're getting stuff out of it, and good luck if you choose to apply to grad programs

>Looking for something *interesting* if possible.

Frege's "Sense and Nominatum"

13 pages, famous, clear, no prep required (he menions Kant once and you'll understand the reference) and is right at the beginning of what became analytic philosophy.

This is the only correct answer.

that's here:

>Stopping at Frege

Read this, pleb:

pastebin.com/9pUqMKnk

I've just started part 3 where he talks about personal identity. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Parfit and I really suggest that it is worth it for you to keep reading.

Fair point, but I'm always confused at its supposed lack of prestige at he undergrad level. Brandom occasionally teaches an undergrad course or two, as does Nicholas Rescher, both of whom I've gotten to study under (I also got to sit in on a grad course with Rescher which was great). Even then, people like Ricketts and Thompson who, despite not being major figures or anything close to that, also teach many undergrad courses.

Pitt as a whole isn't very prestigious, especially compared to Ivies and schools of that caliber. It's undergrad philosophy courses are likely taught by philosophers of the same caliber as most of them though, and certainly better than any private liberal arts colleges w/O grad programs (that therefore don't attract many prominent philosophers to teach there).

Still the Parfit poster here, I'm probably going into Law School and then considering going to pick up a PhD in some field of interest so don't worry, there are others out there.

>tfw philosophy ended with Wittgenstein

Read Dave Chalmers

Analytic philosophy sucks before the turn to metaphysics and the virtue ethics revival, so read some of those.

> certainly better than any private liberal arts colleges w/O grad programs (that therefore don't attract many prominent philosophers to teach there

This is a mistaken assumption on your part. Personal interaction with a Princeton grad who published little is more valuable than being in the same room as a philosopher who publishes often. Professors at schools without grad programs treat you as if you were their grad students; you have a philosophical mentor, and the pedagogical value of this relationship I cannot understate. In deciding where to study philosophy as an undergrad, I spoke to David Velleman, and he recommended unhesitatingly that I opt for a small liberal arts school with a reputation for philosophy over a school with a top-ranked philosophy department.

Read this if you're interested: philosophicalgourmet.com/undergrad.asp

That's my plan too, enjoy Reasons and Persons, Parfit is my favorite

Not sure if you're still lurking or checking up on the thread but I'm honestly very interested in hearing more from you.

Parfit certainly is something. Very glad this professor I have chose to turn Reasons and Persons into a seminar sort of course.

>I find the issues that they deal with to be interesting but ultimately reach the conclusion that what ends up being established is either fairly obvious and doesn't require all of the obscure language and jargon or it just doesn't matter on the grand scheme of things.
Maybe you're reading a justification. Analytic philosophy dealt a lot with justifying basic concepts, like arithmetic, before making an argument as to present both a clear understanding of the concept, so to avoid disagreement on that basis, and to define their epistemological footing.

If you wanna try analytical philosophy, you must have a solid understanding of the foundational mathematics. Set theory, first and second order logic and so on.

Try this text book:
books.google.co.in/books/about/Metaphysics.html?id=gDtHBAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

>I've been teaching philosophy for 15 years and never really read anything "analytic", just a little bit from Russell here and there, it sucked, and i'm pretty sure analytic philosophy in general sucks as much too.

There is so much wrong with this sentence. Please do us a favour and tell me where they allow blockheads like you to teach.

>implying a specialized educator should be expected to have thoroughly studied something well outside of his/her field

I know this is going to sound like odd advice, but you might want to start with a puzzle book. It'll acclimate you to logic in a (hopefully) fun way, and you'll also glean bits and pieces about the philosophy of logic, if you pay close enough attention. Pic related is genuinely one of the best things I've ever read.

After you're done having a play with logic, then you'll have a better idea of how to approach logic problems (and Analytic questions in general) without feeling overwhelmed and/or bored. Try to remember that one should be as engaged with the process of argument itself, rather than only the question and answer.

The Principia is good, but it's better taken as a historical and/or art object than a work of philosophy or maths. It doesn't have the most elegant solutions for any particular problem, and it doesn't set forth a body of standards that people refer to all that often. The merit lies more or less in the beauty of an attempt to derive all of maths from a single axiom set, which was a revolutionary idea at the time.

For all intents and purposes, one would be better off with a textbook on ZFST (to derive number theory, etc.) or just undergrad-level Discrete Maths and/or Geometry (to get a more firm grasp of how proofs are written). It'd make for a more comprehensible read, a better aesthetic experience, and a more useful addition to one's knowledge-base.

Forgot pic.

Anal autistics are exactly that, though.

Thanx. Just saw it. I may not start with Wittgenstein, or may order the tractatus or something else, dunno yet. I'll definitely bookmark the pastebin.

Thanx. I'll probably order it, I've dozens of pages of lessons (not mine obviously - never read those pages) about this book, so if the essay itself is short, I may try that.

I like Alice Cooper, Metallica, these guys, but Chalmers ? really ? I remember seeing a wikipedia article about "the hard problem of consciousness" or something. It's this guy, right ? He seems to be riding in sauerkraut, as we say in my country. But anyway... let's say Chalmers - which book or article ?

that's what I believe, I may as well read only a lil bit of 'original' analytic philosophy just to make sure it sucked at the beginning.

First, I wouldn't say that analytic philosophy is more important than medieval philosophy or, if you prefer, phenomeneology, or maybe Hegel in general, or marxism etc. There's always some author or school that we don't know much and that doesn't feel attractive enough. I know many teachers who don't feel ashamed at all for not knowing Leibniz or even Hegel, or even Freud. Sometimes I find it wrong, but after all you have to make some choices.
Second - I started teaching too early, around 21, and I had no time to discover new authors ot anything. Rather put in shape what I know, make it clearer, etc. When you start working, the more you work, the less you read. It gets easier afterwards.

Regarding Russell : what book to start with ? I read the Problems of philosophy some time ago, but honestly I hated it. Dunno if I should 'study' it more seriously now or find something better.

thanx, it should be ok reagrding logic but I'll remember the book by Smullyan. I like these things. It just gets wrong when philosophy does nothing else.
I remember reading Axiomatics by Robert Blanché, which was very clear, so it should be a good companion.

Don't read Russell. He's shit beyond logic.

Actually feel embarrassed for the guy.

I'd love to hear more of your advice. t. Parfit Poster.

How does one not commit suicide after reading Wittgenstein?

There's no point writing any philosophy afterwards.

bump

>terrible philosophy
>good philosophy

you seem really interesting, you should post more about you, i think lit would benefit

donald davidson is pretty popular with certain continental types. you should probably read some quine first though, and know a little about tarski and formal logic, to get the most out of it.

michael dummett, crispin wright and mid-period hilary putnam (e.g. 'reason, truth and history') could be interesting too, since their interests in anti-realism fit well with some continental concerns.

a good secondary source is lee braver. he has one book on similarities between wittgenstein and heidegger and another on similarities between analytic and continental varieties of anti-realism.

>It just gets wrong when philosophy does nothing else.

Doesn't it feel refreshing to do art for art's sake, or science for science's sake? Not all new knowledge has to have immediate practical applications. Applied philosophy is important, of course, but just like any other thinkers, philosophers should feel at liberty to be self-indulgent, at least on occasion.

Oh look, my old professor is being mentioned on Veeky Forums

Maybe off topic, but is Nozick analytic? He certainly writes like one. Fuck, I'm a libertarian but I get the sense that he's just retreading old ground that's been covered much better by Locke mostly.

Sure, he shuts down Rawls but I'm nowhere near as impressed as I am when I read the greats.

>is Nozick analytic?
yes

>I get the sense that he's just retreading old ground that's been covered much better by Locke mostly.

funny, since part of what he is famous for is providing powerful objections to locke's argument for property rights and then re-formulating the argument to rescue it from those objections

he also wrote on plenty of topics outside of politics and morality. his other most influential work is a definition of knowledge based on counterfactual conditionals

bump

thank you sir

Why are you posting when you could be committing suicide?

You should post some contact info desu!

He couldn't come to terms with the fact that Kierkegaard was beyond his comprehension and depth. He didn't end shit.

FREGE
R
E
G
E

THE MADMAN!

Every utilitarian is analytic. E.g autistic.

At this is when we need someone to post the utilitarian shooting gallery pic.

OP here. I'll probably try these :
- a good companion to contemporary logic
- Raymond Smullyan
- Russell (I didn't like "The Problems of Philosophy", so - which other book ?)
- Frege, Sinn und Bedeutung
- maybe Nozick ? At least he talks about things, unlike logicians.
- Wittgenstein, not the Tractatus - Philosophical investigations ?

It would be great if someone could advertise one of the other authors that were named - Kripke, Quine, Davidson, Chalmers...?