/lit/ - Literature

>>16623469
Russell but you will be disappointed

No. Analytics are all about happy autism fun time playing with abstract concepts. Continentalchads made Western civilization. Anglos cannot cope.

Why would you care about their views on society or culture, 99% of them are secular humanist liberals who think tech companies will save us.

John Rawls
Richard Rorty
Thomas Nagel

I guess Rorty is the only way worth reading, and that's because he read philosophy, not just some autistic anglo subset of philosophy.

>>16623486
>>16623511

Not many, mostly with analytics you get fairly basic bitch ethicists who are interested in contract theory and shit. Similar to how economists back in the old days preferred to theorise about abstract rational actors. The most interesting thing you might get with analytically inclined types is pragmatism, since they've been infusing their baseline analytic crap with pragmatism and dashes of Wittgenstein for decades now, but to be honest those guys just end up being weak Habermasian communicative rationalists.

The thing is, the Germans already developed a fetish for "western" analytic philosophy after WW2 as a weird "look at me, look now Not-Fascist I am, Germany was always western, it was only bad apples who liked that organicist historicist stuff" statement, but very quickly they found their way back to pragmatism which has organicist/historicist elements. And because Germans are autism lords, and they already knew the continental/historicist stuff because they grew up with it, the German pragmatist/analytic communicative rationalists can combine the best of both traditions in a far more natural way than their Anglo counterparts. And it's still not great.

Continental social philosophy and social science is generally better because it has the so-called hermeneutics of suspicion baked into it. Most continentals are reflexively aware of problematics like false consciousness, alienation, ideology, sublimation, interpellation, thrownness, deconstruction, Nietzschean genealogy, etc. The historical dialectic of modern continental philosophy is arguably an arms race between people trying to be "more hermeneutically suspicious than thou."

Even so-called analytic marxism is fairly bad.

Analytics should really have cornered the market on logical realism and just stuck with it. Or at least logical positivism. Their linguistic turn was too late and too atrophied when it finally emerged to compete with the continentals. All "good" analytics are just diluted continentals at this point.

Analytical (((Philosophy))) is for trannies.

>>16623596
I hate this kike like you wouldn’t imagine.

Has he said anything if fucking consequence? Just targeting vulnerable college kids that have shit of life experience

“The perfectly rational utilitarianism...” good fucking job, you correctly centralized ethics around pragmatism and have made it something holier than thou by simply positing the perfect rational agent that doesn’t exist. “We don’t need a god” of course not because there’s absolutely no hope or need for a goddamned closed, condemned ethical system that begs the question and is happy with whatever works, explaining post host because all value is attained from utility. Fucking magnificent!

Maybe

>>16623486
>Continentalchads made Western civilization
You mean destroyed?

>>16623579
>analytic marxism is fairly bad
Why

>>16623695
Taylor is very based.

>>16623579
>Their linguistic turn was too late and too atrophied when it finally emerged to compete with the continentals
Not at all. Nothing is more embarrassing than continental attempts at grappling with language. They just don't have the framework to really do it in any rigorous fashion. Someone like Derrida is an embarrassment to the entire field.
But what's most telling about supporters of the continental tradition is the manner tend to describe the analytic tradition in very much the same way that the most reductive advocates of STEM education describe philosophy as a whole, or the supporters of trade education. When confronted with rigorous discourses on metaphysics, epistemology, logic,ethics, sciences, or mathematics, they dismiss it to be too abstract to be useful solely because they can't force it into service of whatever agenda they constructed their wild speculations to serve. IT amazes me that a tradition so desperate to save philosophy from the sciences ultimately maintains the reductive, utilitarian approach to intellectual inquiry of those involved with the sciences who reject philosophy as a whole.

>>16623469
Why does he look like an alien?

>>16624168
because he is, he was sent to us in the early 20th century by an advanced communist extraterrestrial society to destroy jazz.

>>16623469
No, because analytic philosophers left all that shit in the 40's where it should stay. Continentals are fundamentally authoritarian if you weren't clued in already, the logical extent of discussing culture in philosophy is demanding that the culture changes to conform to the philosophical model. It's just radicalism in respectable clothing.

>>16623965
Both fields are necessary in order for there to be progress.
Continental phil is just a proxy for people who understand something about reality that is based on experience.
Analytic phil is rigor, based on reading and trying to sift through the mess of continental phil people.
You are most obviously the latter, which is okay, but dismissing one part is dismissing the whole, as your endeavours wouldn't exists without them basic bitches.
Also, one of the most interesting things to me is, that kant was a continental at the end of his lifetime, as he saw progress and exploration the driver.
I am not seeking for a batte of continental vs analytical here btw, just trying to show a bridge that people who can't abstract from their own experience could gain insight from.

>>16624728
the "analytic vs. continental is illusory, one is reals the other is feels" cliche is a golden mean fallacy, analytic truly does just suck balls. continental even does logic better.

>>16624743
>continental even does logic better
e.g?

>>16624318
Based analytic Gelassenheit

>>16624743
That's not my view. The analytic gremlins do exist. It's all about who you look at.

>>16624728
To some extent I agree in that pre-Heideggarian continental philosophy is very valuable. My frustration has more to do with seeing the way people on here defend the continental tradition and its methods. First their primary criticism of analytic philosophy is its lack of practicality, essentially going as far as to say that philosophical endeavors that resolve to be something other than the handmaiden of the social sciences and literary criticism just isn't worthwhile. It's just kind of sad to see an entire tradition's appeal be reduced to its "usefulness" in such a cynical way. Second it's often hilarious to see those advocating for a historicist method to be so ignorant of history. In these threads one sees it with that guy who claims that the later Wittgenstein played exclusively for the continental team. To completely forget that ordinary language philosophy was a major movement in the analytic tradition and that and the PI was one of its foundational texts betrays a rather frightening ignorance about the history of philosophy. Third is ultimately the lack substance to most defenses. Very rarely are they willing to elaborate on the specific questions raised and and conclusions reached by this tradition and ultimately what makes them superior. At best you get some jargon and worst mere dismissals which claim that skeptical of their claims is just too dumb to understand, which ultimately leads me to believe that the stylistic tendencies of continental philosophers exist as a gatekeeping exercise rather than being necessary to handle the subject matter.
They seem absolutely desperate to prove the worst claims about the tradition and its adherents true that it's kind of embarrassing.

>>16623469
Analyric philosophers don't even know what culture is lmao

>>16625966
>First their primary criticism of analytic philosophy is its lack of practicality

This is something i agree with though, as analytical philosophy is trying to discern truth values of the structures they are given. It is something important, but the basis for the structure is not given by the analytical philosophers, it's given by the continentals. Now i guess this does tie into your last point, the gatekeeping and rigor of continental philosophers and those are most likely arbitrary. The consistency and structure can be attacked, the baseline idea has to be intueted though, and mostly is based within experience, which is why there is a gateway you have to pass through, in order to actually understand what the philosopher in question meant.
This is mostly attained via being in the same mind state, or understanding the experiences that lead up to being in the situation the philosopher was, that which bore the idea of his philosophy.
This is why it is true that there is gatekeeping, but it's not meant as a deterrent, it's a necessity.

To your second point i have nearly nothing to say. If there is ignorance there is no need to point it out, as it's most likely individual.

One word of advice, don't try to create this hardline distinction, it will make your mind weak. If you read through what you wrote you will notice that there already is a distain for continentals that is born of interaction with closeminded continental selfindentifyers, but this makes you become a analyticuck.

>>16623469
>Are there any analytic philosophers that talk about society and culture like continentals do?

Not really, because the "society and culture" stuff stemmed from some attempt at extrapolating psychological views to groups. The psychological views turned out to be shit, but somehow the "sociology" stuff kept floating.