Analytic Philosophy

>analitics
aka people without STEM background cosplaying as scientists

>frege reader

>Let's say I've done the whole Plato to Nietzsche thing.
But you haven't. QUICK : explain Plato's epistemology, you have ten (10) minutes !

And circlejerking over capital and Marxism for 100 years isn't worse?

>durr why dont my life has meaning lol

Don't. Conclude with the Continentals instead.

You just aren't smart enough to follow continentals and have no taste for poetic philosophy, as opposed to sterile logical arguments that engage with nothing interesting.

Philosophy is not about window dressing.

youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI&t=2022s

This is your brain on analytic philosophy.

How the fuck did you get to Hume without reading Berkeley? He was the logical end to British empiricism.

Berkeley is shit.

>kicking stones

Read papers. It's all about papers. Do you have JSTOR?

Poetic non-logical arguments can teach us a whole lot more about the human condition than soulless analytic philosophers with math envy. The entire discipline has nothing to show for itself. Not a single problem has been resolved.

More analytic philosopher-posting

youtube.com/watch?v=UO0Z4TGjLCY

youtube.com/watch?v=3_t_u5isX8w

What?

>philosophers are awkward and have funny voices

wew

actually I was trying to demonstrate that analytics are cute af

Let's be honest, the only reason Veeky Forums hates analytic philosophy is because it's less "aesthetic" and harder to pretend to understand.

>The entire discipline has nothing to show for itself. Not a single problem has been resolved.
By that standard none of philosophy has anything to show for itself.

lmao symbolic and modal logic is easy as shit.

>ANALyticals

keke

Continental philosophy is actually much more clear.
Rigor doesn't exist, it's a meme made up by the weak in an attempt to gain power. They have since only convinced the weak of its existence.
Why? It hurts your feelings?
>human condition
No such thing exists.

Why are Anglos so analytical? Is it autism?

>Not a single problem has been solved

Maybe not, but genuine progress has been made, not only in solving philosophical problems themselves, but also in justifying the practice of philosophy, which is much more than continental philosophy can claim for itself. Some notable findings include:

1. Kripke decisively establishing the existence of a-posteriori necessity, allowing philosophers to ascertain the existence of necessary truths and broaden our understanding of metaphysical necessity.

2. Getter cases that show justified true belief cannot be knowledge, a genuine epistemological result in philosophy.

3. Quine's undermining of the analytic-synthetic distinction, something that exposes a fatal weakness in verificationist theories of meaning

4. Godel eliminating the logicist and formalist positions in the philosophy of mathematics by way of his incompleteness theorems.

5. Experimental violations of local realism (perhaps you can argue this point depending on whether you consider the philosophy of physics to be a part of analytic philosophy, but there is no denying that it is a fundamental rebuke of an intuitive philosophical position that was held by both physicists and philosophers, and the consensus surrounding these violations is that it marks a rare case of experimental metaphysics).

Now you can respond with meme arrows and scream "will to truth" at me all you want, but this is still a thousand times more interesting and worthwhile than Zizek crying about materialism will ever be

>progress
>justification
Meaningless platitudes.

-knowledge does not exist
-truth does not exist
-'muh lawwjik' is masturbatory autism with no epistemological basis
What do we have here then? ANAL-Y-autisTICS are no less masturbatory than continentals.

>-knowledge does not exist
>-truth does not exist
>-'muh lawwjik' is masturbatory autism with no epistemological basis
Wow... so this is the power of continental philosophy.

Which Witt do you mean? On Certainty?

Great post. This is the truth.

...

excellent and very correct post.
t. person who spent 3 years studying analytics intensely starting with frege

don't lump in godel with your autists please. He's an actual mathematician.

How are Peter Geach and Elizabeth Amscombe?

>t. never read capital

>starting with frege
what did you do after him

>truth does not exist
Is this true?

I know you've read Nietzsche for the very first time and think you know all the answers, but it happens that spouting off a list of (fairly nonsensical) philosophical propositions does not give them a privileged claim to truth (can the universal assertion that there is no truth be true?). Do you really think that some of the findings I mentioned, Gettier cases for instance, do not constitute genuine examples of progression in philosophy? If not then what are they?

He was also a philosopher, which you would know if you really knew anything about his work at all. There is no question that his incompleteness theorems ruled out certain positions in the philosophy of mathematics.

Oh

>Continental philosophy is actually much more clear.

youtube.com/watch?v=yvwhEIhv3N0

Have you read Aristotle, Boethius, and Aquinas?

This this this this
Start with Moore's Refutation of Idealism

>Starting with the Greeks

Could it be...was Veeky Forums right...?

t. philosophy undergrad
you've been brainwashed by the academia. hopefully you'll grow up and realize that analytic (anti)philosophy is worthless. also, you can't put Godel in the same group with retards like Gettier, Quine and Kripke.

1 more thing:
>this is a thousand times more interesting and worthwhile than Zizek
Zizek is a circus attraction, a meme that caters to the mentally ill hipster community. Do you even know what is continental philosophy?

When people talk how philosophy is just 'mental masturbation' this is what they have in mind.

Marxism is intensely relevant in the current political climate, about which analytic philosophy has nothing to say. Their whole framework is Enlightenment liberalism to the core.

They mean a perfectly reasonable statement about how philosophy isn't meaningless nonsense? Are you a positivist then?

I'm not seeing any arguments. What makes any of their work anti-philosophical and worthless? And how does a substantive insight into epistemology or metaphysics differ from insights into mathematical logic with resultant consequences for the philosophy of mathematics?

>these things exist and are right because i said so
>look at all the lawjik im using to proof its!
I read Nietzsche over a decade ago in high school like every other dope that has or will read Nietzsche.

Oh wow, how DARE somebody hold any sort of post-modern stance in the fucking current year? They must be just echoing this WHITE MALE I DISLIKE

>2017
>Giving Analytic/Anglo philosophical pseudo-math the time of day

>He thinks all Conties circlejerk over Marxism/Socialism/etc

I got news for you, kid.

They've confused primordial clarity with obscurantism. So-called 'continental' philosophy is extremely clear, surface-level even, in its intents and such. So-called 'analytic' philosophy, on the other hand, only merely says, describes, symbolically or linguistically, what they mean.

No philosophy is meaningless nonsense, that's a boogeyman.

Try pic related. There are a group of thinkers in American and British universities trying to make steady progress on the big questions of metaphysics. Some analytics are stuck in the whole Quine/Wittgenstein idea that all metaphysics is kind of a waste of time, but there are a lot who aren't.

>2017
>still using objective-subjective
>still using necessity-sufficiency
>still using certainty-doubt
>still using free will -determinism

Kek

Well memed

If only analytic philosophers ever offered any arguments for their meaningless/obscurantist vs. meaningful distinction. It's almost like it's an unwarranted assumption of the field.

the desire for "clarity" in all philosophical contexts is compensation for being stunted and only able to clearly understand the most anal, systematic writing

it's like if someone is boring you so you start acting disinterested, normal people will take the hint but the autistic will require an outright statement of I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR EXHAUSTIVE EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH to understand

not to say that there aren't obscurantists that just try to be vague for the sake of looking cool

Did Hegel start Analytic Philosophy?

In the sense that he was first Continental Philosopher to piss off Anglo-Brainlets so hard that they began to label that which they couldn't understand as nonsense/mysticism/obscurnatism/etc, and moreover caused them to reject Continental Philosophy in favour of their own system.

Anglo's were at the forefront of Continental philosophy and Hegelism when the split happened.

Austrian rejected Continental Philosophy before the Anglo's but then Hitler rekt their shit and they all ran to America and England.

FALSE

The mediocrity of English philosophy has been going on since Bacon ; everything they ever thought was garbage. They are an unphilosophical race and they must be ignored.

Analytics almost began as a rejection of Hegel. The British Idealists were the last non-analytic thing in England and their obscurantism supposedly spurred Russell's generation. I think Russell himself had been one of them when he was young, for like five minutes, but apparently long enough to write "detailed" polemics about it.

20th century analytics definitely conceived themselves in opposition to the continental style, with Hegel as pretty much the poster child for it, representing obscurantism and groundless metaphysical speculation.

>20th century analytics definitely conceived themselves in opposition to the continental style, with Hegel as pretty much the poster child for it, representing obscurantism and groundless metaphysical speculation.

Not so fast.
ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science of Logic

Almost as if vague and misleading generalizations about an entire tradition of philosophy could be wrong. Who would have thought?

And by that you mean last week, right? Because you sure sound like you're in high school. What does your "post modern stance" offer you that is so appealing? If there is no truth or progress in philosophy, what worth is there to value judgements about certain philosophical traditions (analytic/continental)? Where is the substance in continental philosophy? I've already listed some of the most seminal and fruitful work in analytic philosophy.

Philosophy ≠ political philosophy

There are a lot of discussions of meaning in analytic philosophy. Many have been worked through and discarded, like positivist verficationism, other interesting ideas have been introduced, like Putnam's essentialism. But it sounds like you're asking why "analytics" think all continental philosophy is meaningless, which if far from an accurate assessment of the appraisal within analytic circles (Davidson and Rorty are two prominent examples of analytics who engaged with the continental tradition). It's just a different style of philosophy that focuses on different problems and starting from different premises. This might be difficult to understand, since this board is a continental echo chamber in which people who don't read relentlessly bash things they don't like

>how can there is no truth be true
>people are still using this argument
How's Christianity my dude?

>the desire for "clarity" in all philosophical contexts is compensation for being stunted and only able to clearly understand the most anal, systematic writing
It's called ANAL-Y-autisTIC philosophy for a reason

>last week
Well over a decade ago.
>What does your "post modern stance" offer you that is so appealing?
Entertainment.
>If there is no truth or progress in philosophy, what worth is there to value judgements about certain philosophical traditions (analytic/continental)?
The divide is a nondivide.
>I've already listed some of the most seminal and fruitful work in analytic philosophy.
Manifestations of autism aren't 'fruitful works'

He likely means Philosophical Investigations but On Certainty is good too.

>Philosophy ≠ political philosophy

I disagree. Everything is political. Analytic philosophy's characteristic striving for "neutrality" is not a good thing, and comes off as naive at best. Continentals are valuable because they are usually very aware of the historical tradition they are working from, and see their philosophising as directly addressing social problems. This is a distinctly different methodology, since it rejects the view of philosophy as containing distinct puzzles that can be "solved" by a neat division of labour, a view that itself comes from the classical liberal tradition. Even analytics that explicitly do political philosophy seem to do it in a very abstract way, through analysis of ethical puzzles. (e.g. Rawls) instead of genuine socioeconomic analysis.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Continental "socioeconomic analysis" usually just amounts to conspiratorial speculation about how every facet of society is apparently designed to oppress us.

>everything is political
Only in the mind of a subhuman. Stop posting and hang yourself.

That's wrong and you should feel bad about yourself.

Be honest, have you tried reading any of Marx's economic works? You may disagree with it, but I think it obvious that it presents a more systematic and valuable analysis than anglo political philosophy.

>vaguely anti-leftist soundbite picked up on the internet #231

You can do better

Because you are painfully stupid.

when will Veeky Forums realise that the key to academia is humbleness ffs what are you guys like

Psychotism

The key to academia is elitism, not humbleness,

>Entertainment
That's not a good reason to believe something.

>The divide is a nondivide.

Clearly you think there is a divide since you spend time incessantly shitting on analytic philosophy and praising continental.

>Manifestations of autism aren't 'fruitful works'

No matter how many times you repeat this it still isn't an argument.

But philosophy isn't inherently political and we certainly can't reduce all philosophical problems to social issues. In what sense is the mind-body problem or the problem of universals or the problem of negative existentials a social problem? Philosophy is such a wild field that it does a disservice to try to distill it down to one methodology and one focus. There ARE distinct philosophical puzzles that simply have nothing to do with wide ranging critiques of society and economy, and that's okay. Those problems can still be interesting.

>. In what sense is the mind-body problem or the problem of universals or the problem of negative existentials a social problem?

I wouldn't completely disagree with your last point but they are social problems in the sense that nobody ever thinks of stuff in a vacuum, ideas don't just come out of nowhere. There are always large pre-assumptions behind even the most abstract ideas. A marxist and I don't know, say, a positivist have so many differing views on what truth, knowledge, object, subject etc. are that they will THINK about a certain problem in very different ways, which will of course impact their answer.

Sure. And it helps to recognize the historical context to better understand the terms and boundaries of a particular philosophical debate. The only thing is that these pre-conceptions lead to different ideas and positions when approaching philosophy by way of different methodologies and when considering different types of philosophical problems. So a continental is less apt to look at the world in terms of the clearly defined positions that an analytic would, although I'm sure you could ascribe analytic terminology to continental viewpoints (although this could be difficult depending on the gap between kind of issues under consideration). I don't see too many self-proclaimed causal realists or eliminative materialists in continental philosophy, because these problems just aren't political or social in nature. So I certainly see your point about preconceived notions affecting philosophical viewpoints, but I think this is ultimately subordinate to the kind of philosophy being practiced.

In which topic?

In which topic?

t. Never seen anything serious of modal logic

"Member past lives?" "Oh yeah I member"

No. But that doesn't mean that it's false, because the true-false dichotomy is a misunderstanding of how propositions function. Some analytics have even been forced to recognize this, and have redefined truth in various ways to cope. For example, Wittgenstein's language games.

Analytic philosophy is scholasticism 2.0 - now with 50% more SCIENCE!, but you kinda have to know it to bring Anglo intellectuals to your side.