/lit/ - Literature

Lets settle the debate. Why are Analytical philosophers so bad? Or am i biased?

>>23108132
I dislike Russell, but his refutation of Nietzsche is probably one of the best.

>Nietzsche's father died early
>Saki's father died early
>Plato's father died early
>Hume's father died early
>Bertrand Russell's parents died early
>Dostoevsky's mother died early
>Descartes' mother died early
>Spinoza's mother died early

Reasons for this?

This anglo was right about most things

I fuckin love philosophy of language. I fuckin love linguistics. I fuckin love the anglo intellectual tradition.

>The proof that all pure mathematics, including Geometry, is nothing but formal logic, is a fatal blow to the Kantian philosophy. Kant, rightly perceiving that Euclid's propositions could not be deduced from Euclid's axioms without the help of the figures, invented a theory of knowledge to account for this fact; and it accounted so successfully that, when the fact is shown to be a mere defect in Euclid, and not a result of the nature of geometrical reasoning, Kant's theory also has to be abandoned. The whole doctrine of a priori intuitions, by which Kant explained the possibility of pure mathematics, is wholly inapplicable to mathematics in its present form.
-Russell, Mathematics and the Metaphysicians

>In very abstract studies such as philosophical logic, ... the subject-matter that you are supposed to be thinking of is so exceedingly difficult and elusive that any person who has ever tried to think about it knows you do not think about it except perhaps once in six months for half a minute. The rest of the time you think about the symbols, because they are tangible, for the thing you are supposed to be thinking about is fearfully difficult and one does not often manage to think about it. The really good philosopher is the one who does once in six months think about it for a minute. Bad philosophers never do.

>>22571126
Heh, nothing personel kid

hello

how do analytic philosophers prove that their formalization of an ordinary language statement into a logical language accurately conveys the essential meaning of the ordinary language statement?

We discuss Russell and his ability to buck break lit.

Consider this:
>Hegel is the reincarnation of Plato
>Bertrand Russell is the reincarnation of Aristotle
>Nietzsche is the reincarnation of Diogenes
This came to me in a dream btw. Who else is a reincarnation of who?

>>21973495
That's an interesting claim, old bean. Would you care to help me solve a paradox while you're at it? If you have a set that contains all sets that do NOT contain themselves, does it contain itself?

>splits your bussy open

So are continentals of course, but at least continentals are honest about being pretentious European academic elitists. They enjoy it and don't pretend otherwise.
In contrast, analytic "philosophers" pretend to be more "grounded" and "serious" and "not like those crazy continentals".
But it is a lie. Analytic philosophers think they are so smart and yet they contraduct themselves all the time and they can't even epistemologically justify any of their claims since they're all gay liberal materialists anyway. It's all smoke and mirrors for their true ideology which is creating the New World Order.

>>21291676
Stop, my dick can only get so erect and I won't have the book in my hand for weeks yet

>>21047826

>>20914544
ok chud

>>20705559
I'm an atheist but I hate trannies, what do?

Redpill me on him. He seems pretty gay, and a hack.

Why are the works of Bertrand Russell so derided on this board?

Remember when DH Lawrence BTFO him?

It seems that the Russell threads are back after a hiatus, so it's time to start another Russell-the-midwit thread.

"[Meinong] argued, if you say that the golden mountain does not exist, it is obvious that there is something that you are saying does not exist -- namely the golden mountain; therefore the golden mountain must subsist in some shadowy Platonic world of being, for otherwise your statement that the golden mountain does not exist would have no meaning. I confess that, until I hit upon the theory of descriptions, this argument seemed to me convincing." -- Bertrand Russell

PREVIOUS THREAD: >>/lit/thread/S19621572