/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14458581]

>Analytic Philosophers

[Anonymous No.14458585]

>>14458581
>*ends continental philosophy*
heh, nothing personal kid...

[Anonymous No.14458616]

>>14458585
wut?! the cunt couldn't even end his own theses

[Anonymous No.14458636]

>>14458581
>analytic
>philosophy

That's an oxymoron.
Analytics are just a circlejerk of sam harris-tier scientists trying to take over philosophy

[Anonymous No.14458658]

*enters the thread*

[Anonymous No.14458858]

>>14458585
Oh yes here come the brainlet Analytictards hard coping with the fact that they will never be able to figure out the meaning of life

[Anonymous No.14458872]

Any other based pluralists here that don't care.

[Anonymous No.14458877]

>>14458636
Imagine actually calling philosophers like Hilary Putnam and David Lewis "sam harris-tier scientists". Really pathetic display of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.14458880]

>>14458872
>Pluralism

[Anonymous No.14458887]

>>14458877
The only thing worse than an Analytic "Philosopher" is an American Analytic "Philosopher"

[Anonymous No.14458920]

>>14458858
>cowardly hermit talking about how badass he is
Continental philosophy in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.14458932]

>>14458920
>Nutshell coping
Analytic Philosophy in a Nutshell

[Anonymous No.14458933]

>>14458880
It's just a word you fucking autist

[Anonymous No.14458935]

>>14458581

Where does the analysis you use to analyze philosophical questions come from?

[Anonymous No.14459335]

>>14458935
The problem is that not all philosophical questions can be reduced to a logical or mathematical analysis like the Analytics want to do. Thats why they usually ignore the existential questions that people like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche tried to answer. Analytics have given up on the core questions of philosophy

[Anonymous No.14459452]

>>14458872
yeah I think analytic and continental both have their place, and good new philosophy will likely be a synthesis of both

[Anonymous No.14459459]

>>14458935

You have to find the clitoris

[Anonymous No.14459472]

[Anonymous No.14459475]

>>14459452
Youre falling for the black magic of the Demon Lord Hegel

>>14459472
literally this

[Anonymous No.14459481]

Continental philosophy - SOUL
Analytical p*ilosophy - SOULLESS

[Anonymous No.14459532]

Someone explain to me how Frege thought that logic could precede epistemology right now. You need a fucking epistemology to justify your logic. How can you just appeal to logic "in itself" without explaining what you take that "in itself" to be?

[Anonymous No.14459918]

>>14459532
But don't you also need logic to justify your epistemology?

[Anonymous No.14459936]

>>14459481
(Cunt)inental
(Anal)ytical

[Anonymous No.14459991]

Thats right, Philosophy is dead Goyim. just leave the big life questions to the Scientists and Analyticists. don't read reactionary incels like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx and Deleuze. Also remember to buy my book "the Moral Landscape", it proves that Neoliberal ethics are objectively true and Morality is a new branch of Science

[Anonymous No.14460020]

>>14459472
except maybe Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.14460028]

>>14459918
I would say you that in the particular, empirical, "psychologistic" sense, you need language to justify your epistemology. Meaning, if we want to talk philosophically, we have to start somewhere, and the most general description of that "somewhere" is language. Not logic.

I'm fine with someone saying that language obeys (or that it probably obeys) some kind of underlying logical laws. But once you start actually trying to figure out what those laws are, you're already doing epistemology, or phenomenology depending on how you look at it.

What I don't understand is what Frege thinks he's doing. It's not phenomenology, which he thinks is psychologistic because it's empirically observing real thoughts - he doesn't want to empirically observe thoughts to understand their structures (like Husserl), he just wants to deal with the structures. But how do you get at the structures? In order to justify elaborating some scheme of logic as the "rules of thought in general," you have to make a statement of why the rules of logic are the way they are, which is at that point a metaphysical and/or epistemological statement and not a logical one.

A neo-Kantian says that the laws of logic follow from the real structure of human cognition. But Frege doesn't like this, and says it relativizes reason. A Hegelian could say the laws of logic follow from the rational structure of reality itself. But Frege doesn't like this, and says it is metaphysics, which is not the concern of logic. A phenomenologist could say that the laws of logic are simply the laws which we observe as necessary in our thinking. But Frege says this is psychologistic and has no relation to "thought as such."

So what is he doing? I used to think this was a common blind spot of logicists, but I've been steadily accumulating evidence that most other logicians did not share Frege's outlook. Boole didn't, Dedekind didn't. Obviously the formalists didn't. Not even Russell did, from what I can tell - as early as the 1890s, in considering non-Euclidean geometries, he seemed to understand that logics are merely coherent and formalized, not real rationalisms. So I'm even more confused now: What the fuck was Frege's stance?

[Anonymous No.14460067]

>>14458581
Why do people just repeat the same fucking memes. I only know a bit about ancient philosophy so it's nothing to me but why doesn't anyone even elaborate? Could it be you don't know what the fuck you're saying, just clicking along like a good machine? Also what's what abstractions and groupings of things becoming vastly more prominent than the items placed in them to the extent that the items are irrelevant or overwritten?

[Anonymous No.14460068]

>>14458585
>dude how could God make the universe if He was unmade?
Utter brainlet who completely missed the point of God.

[Anonymous No.14460201]

Fuck how can anyone read analytic philosophy without dying of boredom.
Analytic philosophy is so useless and uninteresting, its just a new atheist circlejerk of neoliberal sciencefags who have killed philosophy

[Anonymous No.14460222]

>>14458616
He could just end his own marriages

[Anonymous No.14461000]

>this entire thread
404: No arguments found.

[Anonymous No.14461082]

>>14458920
he never expected the rabble to understand the actions of a superman, dont be salty you tripped on the rope and had to climb back to the tower lame leg

[Anonymous No.14461095]

>>14458581
>Philosophy

[Anonymous No.14461115]

>>14458585
>*starts reddit*
ftfy

[Anonymous No.14461378]

>>14458658
>*dies*

[Anonymous No.14461393]

>>14458872
muh metaphysical multiculturalism