Will reading analytic philosophy make me a better writer?

I basically only care about improving my writing, but I was just considering taking some phil classes

No, because philosophy is only concerned with a small subset of all potentially interesting literary topics. You're better off reading general non-fiction, especially biographies, if you want plunder existing texts for future stories.

Have you read any analytic philosophy?
There's nothing applicable, its all just autistic nit picking at the most banal common sense shit

I feel bad for Kripke. He's incredibly autistic and brilliant, so he's great at building castles out of whatever materials you give him, but someone gave him the completely awful material of analytic philosophy.

He's spent a lifetime analyzing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin within the analytic framework he's been assigned, but he has never once stepped back and thought about the foundations of the inquiry. If he had done so, even once in his long career, he would have realized they are completely bunk. He's preaching to a choir of bungling Englishmen.

One underachieving stoner with a tattered copy of Heidegger, some perseverance, and an IQ of 110, is literally smarter than Saul Kripke, Autistic Doyen of Analytic Philosophy, with an IQ of 257. Imagine what Kripke could have done as an historian, or a chemist, or something else with an empirical metier as its first foundation. Instead, he has essentially been solving Rubik's Cubes for his entire life. They just keep building him a bigger cube every time he finishes one, on the same design premises. Little does he know, it's a complete waste of time.

Then I suggest you do like me, like says. Though I personally don't read biographies. I do like searching google scholar for interesting stuff.

hmm ok, maybe I won't waste the time. I assumed analytic phil would explore a lot of interesting philosophical concepts like mind and consciousness that would be applicable

>Will reading analytic philosophy make me a better writer?
no, but continental philosophy will.

>continental burnouts actually believe this

I'm laughing

>how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
>mfw everytime a pseud repeats this

>bad writer
nice spook

>nice spook

he's not brilliant at all

>continental faggots still trying to prove analytic phil is bad

every time

>faggots
Spooked
>Anal Philosophy
Spooked

0 arguments

The good thing about Continental Philosophy is that we don't have to prove shit, all we need to do is say it and people will see the truth for themselves

>le contrarianism

simply epic friend. go read heidegger in a corner while the read philosophers debate little buddy

>real philosophers
dawww, is little buddy sad that his 4 years of university were flushed down the toilet so that he could learn about pseudo-mathematics? reminder that real mathematicians, scientists and logicians cringe whenever they see analytic "philosophers" try and fail miserably to talk about these subjects.

>reminder that real mathematicians, scientists and logicians cringe whenever they see analytic "philosophers" try and fail miserably to talk about these subjects.

[citation needed]

>[citation needed]
I vouch for him, user, he's right.

There is no analytic-continental divide you fucking reddit pseuds

>separating analytic philosophers from logicians

no but being an autistic jew might

>who is godel, einstein, john bell, niels bohr, frege, cantor, wheeler, newton, mach, reichenbach, etc. etc

if contemporary "new atheists" constitute your notion of "real scientists" then there is no helping you.

Wrong, pretty much every mathematician who is interested in logic and works in that area is interested in philosophy of mathematics.
t. mathematician

Different guy. What have you found interesting from that?

From philosophy of math? I'm mainly interested in foundational matters regarding logic and math. Most of the literature is technical and not philosophical (but contrary to a lot of other math textbooks, mathematical logic texts often have philosophical and historical digressions, this is telling), but taking a step back and looking critically at the theories being built is incredibly helpful for many different reasons.

Nah I mean like, what ideas in particular have you found interesting from Phil of Math?

Recently I've been reading Graham Priest's "Beyond the limits of thought" which is a defense of dialetheism. That's pretty interesting.

god damn you're all retarded illiterates