Is analytic philosophy respectable?

Is analytic philosophy respectable?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajñana#On_knowledge
ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/mereotopology.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Philosophy is not respectable, no.

Why?

I enjoy sellars and quine. They're worth reading if you don't care for the right side of this picture yet still want to ponder some intriguing ideas. Plus both are naturalists so they can be integrated into a scientific system of belief.

most of them don't use axiom, and don't pre-etablish the rules of their logic, (unlike math where you can have diffenrent conclusion depending of the logic or the axiom you use), but desu Spinoza try to do this in Ethics and prove the god existance, but not the god as the retaded talk about, its about a stuff like nature

You need to produce something of value to be respectable. The people who build power plants are respectable. The people who try to make a living writing about what they think the definition of power is are not respectable.

>most of them don't use axiom, and don't pre-etablish the rules of their logic
Except that they do. If Spinoza is your point of reference for philosophy, i.e. roughly 300 year old philosophy, you may not be apt to judge the discipline as it is practiced today.

Is pure math respectable?

>You need to produce something of value to be respectable
And value is subjective. A person who builds power plants may be respectable in your eyes while a philosopher isn't. A philosopher may be respectable in the eyes of another, while the man who built a power plant isn't.

I doubt you know a thing about philosophy beyond the "yuo cant know nuffin" meme. Philosophy has played a central role in the way science, math, and even politics have progressed.

>most of them don't use axiom, and don't pre-etablish the rules of their logic
this is false

Of course.

On many topics are many different opinions but logically only one of them can be true. Therefore, philosophy is currently a pseudo-science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajñana#On_knowledge

Small correction. I meant protoscience and not psuedoscience.

>Philosophy isn't axiomatic

Never heard of Aristotelian logic have you?

freshman engineer detected

>despite the fact that OP specified analytical philosophy people are assuming he means touchy feely no rigor relative philosophy

>continental philosophy

Yes

There is no clear division between continental and analytic, it's just tribalist and sectarian fiction. Also, most philosophy amounts to obfuscated language games that offer nothing except for maybe, the challenge of grasping such a behemoth of faux-complexity. These two poorly-defined groupings in and of themselves display this common reluctance of actually saying anything.

t. someone who knows nothing of analytic philosophy. It is rigorous.

It is infinitely more respectable than continental philosophy, so indeterminate

empiricism is a continental philosophy, and it's pretty good

you can not prove anything in a vacuum

Philosophy produced maths.

Disclaimer: I only ever took two freshman-grade philosophy courses.

My introduction to philosophy professor would spend entire classes contemplating the meaning of the word meaning while all of the students sat in awe, astonished by his deep capacity of thought, ignoring the fact that he wasn't actually teaching anything. My philosophy of science professor, like any other philosopher of science, had never done any kind of scientific research and knew nothing about it so he went on week long rants about how science didn't hold all the answers and scientists were fools for thinking otherwise when literally no scientist ever has held that belief. I don't know; maybe I just had shit professors and peers but philosophy as it is know seems to me like a circle jerk.

empiricism is analytic philosophy, in fact the first continental/analytic divide would probably be between the british empiricists and the continental rationalists

most philosophers of science are just trying to dispel the idea that science can make deductively sound claims and sperg about the problem of induction. they're not wrong, they just have autism.

Look at a small example of you being wrong

it's the only respectable form

ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/mereotopology.htm

t. Wittgenstein

>Philosophy produced math
>Unironicaly
The starting points of math are nothing but philosophical, they are just evidence and stated as principles, and that's it

Philosophy is not a protoscience. Science is a sub-philosophy.

also analytic philosophy is anglo autism and is completely laughable

brainlet

What the fuck are you even trying to say?