Redpill me on Saul Kripke

redpill me on Saul Kripke
is he really the best team analytic has to offer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI
youtube.com/watch?v=2NmVVu7gF9c
youtube.com/watch?v=R-DmyUI1PsQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Go fuck yourself that's not how philosophy works

believe it or not, before he became an analytic philosopher he was just a guy on the beach

Kripke is just another anti-philosopher aboard the language/logic autism train that has wrecked philosophy. In the (distant or not that distant, I hope) future the philosophical paradigm of the linguistic turn shall be frowned upon, and rightfully so.

We live in the dark age of philosophy, the linguistic/logic autists are more dogmatic than their medieval ages counterparts.

I think of his as a mathematician (being a student of mathematics), and his contributions are pretty significant, especially his work with Joyal that fed into topos theory.

this is not a good board

Don't bother. The person you're replying to is likely an illiterate faggot who can't into high school tier formal logic.

he's right
analytical philosophy is literally puzzles for autists; it makes no ripples outside of a very tiny community in an ivory tower

Analytic philosophy has had a lot of impact on developments in modern math overall and type theories in particular. Basically every serious research math department out there works with philosophers to some extent. Take your retarded memeing and fuck off to whatever shithole of a board full of contrarian teenagers you crawled out of.

The p-zombies can't into philosophy free of the obsession with mathematics and natural sciences. I'm sorry to disappoint you folks, but there's a lot more to philosophy beyond the formal systems and puzzle-solving autism.

And formal logic is basically a scam. The traditional idea of logic has been to explain how we think, how to reach conclusions that cannot be questioned. In what way does classical, let alone predicate/modal logic have to do anything with that. They are arbitrary mathematical constructions that guarantee nothing.

>can't into philosophy free of the obsession with mathematics
You won't find any serious philosophy scholar dismissive of either traditions. The only people who do that are underage autismos blindly repeating le funny meme on the internet and English lit majors who think reading a couple of original sources and picking up the terminology makes them an expert in the field, yet still have an allergic reaction to anything that involves rigorous thought and not just pseudointellectual wallowing in pointless vague nonsense (a remark solely upon their personal ability and not continental philosophy itself).
>formal logic is basically a scam
>They are arbitrary mathematical constructions
Nobody is really interested in correcting your severe educational deficiencies or engaging in contrarian shitposting with an imbecile. Spend more time reading instead of pretending to be retarded online, then you might even actually comprehend all those things that scare you so much.

>you won't find any serious philosophy scholar dismissive of either traditions
Metaphysics is still considered a rude word in some circles, the Anglo autists were hell-bent on turning philosophy into a little bitch of natural sciences.

>nobody is really interested in yadda yadda ad hominem
Here's a little thinking material for you friendo: according to classical logic and its definition of the material implication, I can safely conclude that the following implication is valid: if I do not exist, then 2+2=4 (hint: there is no relevant link between the antecedent and the consequent). "Natural" deduction is anything but natural - it is merely, as I already said, an arbitrary mathematical construction, nothing else.

One more thing: it's ridiculous how you assume that I have zero understanding of the things I'm talking about, and then while trying to dismiss my arguments on the basis of idiotic ad hominems you actually prove that you indeed are the retard without any relevant knowledge whatsoever. Also, I'm literally inside the academia (philosophy). Top fucking kek

I like this thread

>Metaphysics is still considered a rude word in some circles, the Anglo autists were hell-bent on turning philosophy into a little bitch of natural sciences.

Not who you're replying to, but why don't you like Kripke? He quite literally rehabilitated the practice of metaphysics.

>is he really the best team analytic has to offer?

Nah brah, Kripke is Jew-tier analytic

Muh nigga D M Armstrong is God-tier

Because I don't give a flying fuck about some autist's logical framework that supposedly "revives metaphysics". Kripke's essentialism "revives" (or rather, attempts to "revive") metaphysics in the disgusting linguistic paradigm. Reducing philosophy to language is a heresy.

Because Descartes did the same 500 years ago without going 150% autistic wankery
>cogito ergo sum
there you go, thanks a lot analytic philosophy! you sure are doing amazing progress! reals > muh feels amirite!
kys

>In the (distant or not that distant, I hope) future the philosophical paradigm of the linguistic turn shall be frowned upon, and rightfully so.

It really shows that you have fuck all knowledge of contemporary philosophy, both analytic and continental.

epic rebutal

There was nothing to refute in your post, I'm just merely pointing out that you're retarded. Guess I did not make myself clear enough.

analytic philosophy is really good at creating artificial problems and solving them

continental philosophy is really good at noticing actual problems and has never solved any

user btfo

Could you give examples of both?

>continental philosophy is really good at noticing actual problems and has never solved any
But it does bring new ways of looking at things, appreciating life, etc, it has always been about openning new doors, analytic are only good at closing them
Reminder that continental philosophy literally created science, how can analytic philosophy even compete?

just listen to the voice of this whiny jew

youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI

>Veeky Forums has this much of a hate boner for the analytic tradition

>he thinks that the analytical and continental distinction is valid in the 21th century
Top fucking kek, once again you are attacking me with ad hominems and writing absolute bullshit that utterly disqualifies you from being taken seriously.

Also, I'm not you "analytical" inbred. is the philosophy you mongoloids want, an abomination any healthy individual should despise.

youtube.com/watch?v=2NmVVu7gF9c
Let us cherish the rare interview with one more staggeringly brilliant analytical mind! What kind of a genius does it take to deem traditional epistemology worthless and succumb it to the natural sciences? No philosophical question can be raised about the validity of scientific methods; it is *not* a philosophical task to question science! Revel in Quine's ingenuity, lowly plebeians, for this man has finally showed us the path of true knowledge, the path of the light.

Analytic philosophers aren't really like continentals: they don't have cohesive worldviews that could make you a 'disciple' of them. Many of them had far-ranging interests, or all-encompassing projects, but the way they're treated in their latter day is as inventors of useful technical apparatuses – much else of what they do is often a 'miss' and doesn't get picked up again.

So in Kripke's case, he helped the field enormously by developing a semantic interpretation of modal logic using Kripke-frames, and devastated the descriptive theory of reference using proper names, but much of his other work is just not really worth paying attention to. Same for every other analytic – they hit and miss with individual contributions, not all-encompassing oracular proclamations.

>hit and miss with individual contributions, not all-encompassing oracular proclamations.
same as continentals

I've always wondered why analytical philosophers didn't just study mathematics.

...

Because then you'd have to compete with actual mathematicians and couldn't feel superior to the dirty contintentals by pointlessly formalizing your philosophy.

Many of them did and do study mathematics.

Why is it pointless to be clear and rigorous? You're obviously projecting your own inferiority complex about blowing hard at basic logic. Did you fail 9th grade algebra or something?

They're distinct disciplines with distinct interests. It's not uncommon from one field to borrow from or contribute to another, but that's not justification for merging the fields.

>Why is it pointless to be clear and rigorous?

Clear and rigorous about what exactly?

Quine proved that the analytic-synthetic distinction was bullshit, logical positivism was untenable and he always proved that empiricism was dogmatic idiocy.

Which leaves analytic philosophy with essentially nothing to do except autistic language games.

he also proved that*

>triggered Analyet dork

I love how you already assume that formalizing is always inherently clear and rigorous when it obviously isn't. You don't even have to listen to the dirty contyz, analytics will frequently bring up that pointless, hard to follow formalization where it isn't needed is the equivalent to continental "obscurantism"

I hope all of these posts are ironic bait

Veeky Forums is full of butthurt Communists, what do you expect

What are Kripkes contributions beyond the known stuff?

I read the start of Naming and Necessity but didn't get far.
I'll also do a youtube series on Idris (the recent dependently typed programming language) next month - that's roughly my interest in logic.

science's cucks, all of them

i dunno how much time you've spent on the beach but it's a god tier place to do philosophy (in the timeless socratic sense) with friends and think about stuff real deep

Kripke had some influential stuff on Wittgenstein and rule-following, on the infinite hierarchy of Fregean senses, puzzles about proper names in belief reports, etc. None of that stuff seems to get the universal acclaim that NN or his semantic treatment of modal logic does. The latter is definitely his most important achievement – NN is influential, but I honestly don't think it's that good.

Everyone likes to start with Mort but I have a soft spot for Small Gods.

>Kripke? He quite literally rehabilitated the practice of metaphysics.

>tfw i google this to find out what it means

Q. How is Saul Kripke said to have revive metaphysics in analytic philosophy tradition again?

Because he provides a logical framework within which to understand what it means to say that a thing has some property necessarily. Call this view essentialism.

Quine had thought that essentialism was false because necessity could only be a property of sentences. (So there could be necessary truths, but not necessary properties of objects.) Quine's reason for saying this was that there are logical paradoxes that appear to arise if we attribute necessary properties to objects. For instance:

The number 8 is necessarily even.
The number of the planets is 8.
Therefore the number of the planets is necessarily even.
But 3 is false. Proponents of essentialism would regard (3) as a paradigm case of a false sentence. They want to say that the fact that we have 8 planets in the solar system rather than 7, or whatever is just a contingent fact.

What Kripke's semantics for modal logic gives us is the ability to make a distinction between:

3*. It is necessarily true that the number of planets is even. 3**. It is necessarily true of the number of planets, that that number is even.

The difference being that 3*, but not 3** implies 3. Therefore, Quine's objection doesn't go through.

This is all still controversial, but this is the guiding idea behind why Kripke is so important for contemporary metaphysics.

>MY FUCKING FACE WHEN ANALYTICS THINK THIS IS PHILOSOPHY

HOLY FUCKING SHIT DUDE

HAHAHAHAHAHA

so i guess single-handedly demonstrating the legitimacy of an entire branch of formal logic isn't philosophy? helping to overturn a century-long prejudice against metaphysics isn't philosophy? refuting hume and kant (among others) along the way isn't philosophy?

>formal logic
>philosophy

LMFAO

>"refuting" the entire transcendental turn and therefore transcendental (conceptualist) logic by not understanding what it is, returning to fucking port royale realism as a consequence, and thinking you've revolutionized philosophy

HOW ARE ANALYTICS SO BAD AT THINKING WHEN THEY CLAIM TO DO IT FOR A LIVING

Analytics are literally like physicists who can't get past the space-filling model of particles, yet somehow manage to get jobs as physicists. What is wrong with their brains? Why can't they handle abstractions and representative forms, and consequently delve deeper? Why does their entire view of physics always have to refer back to the a priori space-filling model?

>>"refuting" the entire transcendental turn and therefore transcendental (conceptualist) logic by not understanding what it is

he actually refutes it by demonstrating that not all necessary truths are a priori (and, similarly, that not all contingent truths are a posteriori). more generally, he shows that kant's first critique is founded on confused notions of analyticity, a prioricity and necessity. you might understand this if you actually read some philosophy instead of having to google it

>if it doesn't fit my super special specific constraint on what philosophy should be and what problems it must be applied to it's not philosophy

This is exactly what analytics just spent more than a century doing you stupid fuck. I would ask why you don't know the history of your own discipline, but then "history" is a scary word to analytics, because concepts and semantic essences are perennial, lmfao, ahahahaha you're like an actual baby

>philosophy has always been employed to grapple with specific puzzles about the nature of the world

Yeah, like how German idealism attempted to understand the subject's relation to the objective world, and got caught in various cul-de-sacs in the process and gradually progressed to more nuanced understandings of how phenomena appear to us and what we can say about their relationship to physical reality, and then analytics came along and said

>WOW ALL THAT STUFF SEEMS REALLY GAY, I'M GOING TO DO MATH PROBLEMS WITH PLATONIC SEMANTIC ESSENCES INSTEAD, DURR

And German philosophers completely ignored their retarded bullshit, adopted the actual interesting bits of Anglo philosophy (Pragmatist empiricism), and then adopted late Wittgenstein into a continental-analytic synthesis after his work (very similar to Heidegger's) was completely lost on bewildered analytics who thought he was a naive logical realist ahahahahaha

And the paragons of the whole discipline are guys like Quine, a confused pseudo-continental, Rorty, a confused pseudo-continental pastiche artist, and Kripke, a guy whose revolutionary idea was to return to naive logical realism as a response to naive logical quietism

Oh god you've wasted your whole fucking life studying something that isn't even really philosophy

My mind is like a continuously flowing essence of dialectical patterns and heuristics for comprehending reality and posing questions about ontology, and you are doing beep boop equations in the dirt with the fucking scholastic realists and talking about "possible worlds"

Not even naive positivist scientists give a fuck about your discipline anymore, literally all you can even do any more is write bizarre analytic """""ethics"""" about how "One should logically kill the cat in order to save a great many more cats." based on the same naive a priori assumptions that undermine all your attempts at metaphysics and epistemology, because you can't think destructively or dialectically

Hahahahahaha hang on I'll let you finish reading fucking Allison on Kant as if anyone cares

>Guys Kant's architectonic is built on Leibnizian-Wolffian rational metaphysics! Guys, guys, Kant was wrong about the fucking transcendental deduction and the synthetic a priori! Guys, read this paper on Frege with me!

How about no, you homosexual dilettante

How about you go back and re-do undergrad and this time read some Husserl

>My mind is like a continuously flowing essence of dialectical patterns and heuristics for comprehending reality and posing questions about ontology

has Veeky Forums really gotten this bad? i guess it has. it's almost enough to make me miss Deep&Edgy

calm down, big guy
kripke did refute kant

Inasmuch as any undergraduate refutes extreme realism by saying "uh, that's dumb" when he hears it in lecture.

Naming and Necessity is atavistic garbage.

White people need to stop trying to do philosophy. Y'all ain't deep or smart or nothing. Face some actual oppression for once and tell me how insightful you really is.

who's the foremost black philosopher? kendrick lamar?

>Anal lick dicks

your critique lacks any objectivity or rigour

Neither thing exists

Nice

...

You're meant to post the updated version

Pepe is a fascist. Fuck off back to r/the Donald.

Also a good contender

At least he's real unlike you corny ass German idealist white boys.

reminder they're both worthless compared to science

In what, designing toilets?

curing diseases, creating helpful technology, raising the standards of life
you know, the important stuff

yes scientists are good to improve hedonism in normies

>letting shitbags survive for longer periods of time

Woah

And it only benefits rich, old white men like Dumbald Tinyhandsl Von Fuckface Drumpfenloser.

If I was an analytic philosopher I would seriously kill myself aftert his

>muh fallacies
>muh falsiability
>muh rigour
>muh utility
By the 2050s most anglo philosophy departments will have been replaced by robots and they'll manage to be less autistic than what we currently have

totally true. it was probably the beach that did it desu

Is this a troll

>And formal logic is basically a scam. The traditional idea of logic has been to explain how we think, how to reach conclusions that cannot be questioned.
>In what way does classical, let alone predicate/modal logic have to do anything with that. They are arbitrary mathematical constructions that guarantee nothing.

Have you studied any logic? Aristotle begins the categories asking how do we deny or ascribe a predicate to a subject.

That is an incredibly intuitive and plausible framework for understanding how we think when truth matters to us.

Modern logic only builds on top of this.

And you dismiss the discipline because it hasnt met what you call its ultimate aim. Do you dismiss physics because we dont have a perfect model of the universe?

>I'm sorry to disappoint you folks, but there's a lot more to philosophy beyond the formal systems and puzzle-solving autism.

A child can wikipedia philosophy and figure out there is more than one branch of philosophy, and you think this is insightful.

>Here's a little thinking material for you fr-

This problem of yours has been tackled because logic has made progress. Look up relevance logic of modal logic.

PS: I find it cute that if a theory doesnt immediately please your intuitions then it must be dismissed. I'm sure the magic-light box people call "microwave" must be horrific for you

"Let no one ignorant of geometry enter"

>Clear and rigorous about what exactly?

About argumentation obviously. For example, it is unclear with Aristotle's logic what to do with existential import. "All unicorns are animals" seems to say that unicorns exist. With predicate logic and forward, this becomes more clear because we have quantifiers.

>Quine proved
Why do you think Quine is analytic philosophy. They dont even start with the same letter.

>I love how you already assume that formalizing is always inherently clear and rigorous

They asked a question, they didnt assume anything

>progressed to more nuanced understandings of how phenomena appear to us an-

Fuck off with your faggot-world-mind gaylord

I will pound the geist out of you fuckboi

youtube.com/watch?v=R-DmyUI1PsQ
the goat

Hey man, good posts, I just wanted to say if you called us autists a few more times your argument would be a lot more convincing.

Yeah, no shit.

bump

>analytic philosophy
autistic logic games for insecure anglo pseuds who wish they could be doing pure mathematics

>continental philosophy
textual performance art for French pseuds who are butthurt about the fact that the Communist revolution hasn't happened yet and can't understand why