/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19165690]

Continental Philosophy or Analytic Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19165695]

Some here, some there.

[Anonymous No.19165703]

>>19165695
Thread over.

[Anonymous No.19165711]

archaic distinction, they're not different things anymore. Critical theorist deleuzoid types are starting to take theory of computation, logic, and a maths in general more serious. Analyticoids are finally starting to concede that maybe the history of thought and reason has something to say.

[Anonymous No.19165726]

>>19165690
To chose one over the ither is childish, they’re both pointless, also hegel wasn’t continental, no philosopher before husserl was for that matter

[Anonymous No.19165734]

>>19165726
>hegel wasn’t continental
Yes, he was.

[Anonymous No.19165782]

>>19165726
Analytic philosophy literally began as a rejection of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19165791]

Nick Land is the final work of continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.19165803]

I like analytic philosophy if that meme is true.

[Anonymous No.19165814]

>>19165690
Analytic philosophy, in Anglos I trust

[Anonymous No.19165843]

>>19165690
Analytic philosophy isn't philosophy bro.

[Anonymous No.19165847]

>>19165690
Continental. Analytic is just soulless bugman logic for faggots who failed at science.

[Anonymous No.19165859]

>>19165791
This is really stupidly phrased but there's some truth to it. Land represents a kind of endpoint for the stylistically driven postmodern stuff in the anglophone world. One has to really understand how he abused and distorted analytical in his work (cybernetics mostly) to deterritorialize his theory of the production of subjectivity. So he causes a convergence of analytic and continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19165864]

>>19165859
No, Land is just a sophist like every other philosophy. People really think they're smart because they write a bunch of goobleygook and call it philosophical system.

[Anonymous No.19165931]

>>19165864
yeah his work is garbage, but his distortion of philosophy did a lot of damage, and you can't recover from it by just saying "he's a sophist" - you have to show how, or you just caught in some dumb resentful fight between parties. You have to show how, and part of that process is actually learning the parts of analytic philosophy he abused to smuggle his ideas into continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19165947]

>>19165931
Its quite ease to debunk sophists by just revealing their political,economic intentions - that will always get enough people to avoid them

[Anonymous No.19165985]

>>19165947
Perhaps, but I believe Land was very skilled at masking these in Fanged Noumena and Thirst of Annihilation. He declares himself a cyberguerilla in camouflage at the end of one the essays in FN. It's deliberately esoteric, obfuscating, and confusing to the reader. That, and in the present there is a really strong ironic nihilism (or at least there was up until recently, I think it's receding) in the atmosphere that makes people just not care about being misled by sophists.

[Anonymous No.19166021]

>>19165690
What are the essential works in Continental Phil?

[Anonymous No.19166161]

>>19166021
Phenomenology of Spirit for starters.

[Anonymous No.19166182]

>>19165985
>He declares himself a cyberguerilla in camouflage at the end of one the essays in FN. It's deliberately esoteric, obfuscating, and confusing to the reader. T
No, it's just embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19166251]

>>19166182
Maybe from here, but certainly not during the 2010s, and the waves don't just get canceled out by your own sense of maturity. There are still neo-Landians, and there is still a massive distortion to the work of Deleuze and Guattari, Nietzsche, cybernetics, and a lot of critical theory in general. You don't get it, because you're falling into ressentiment by just dismissing them as stupid, embarassing, or sophistical without looking at the real effects on spirit. You have to explain why people did fall for this "embarrassing" line, and calling them idiots is a non-explanation, you need to do the real labour of the negative to prevent a repetition.

[Anonymous No.19166267]

>>19165847
Yeah, I do not get the point of analytical philosophy. It seems like kids building toy castles to me.

[Anonymous No.19167091]

>>19166251
>>19165985
>>19165931
>>19165859
Land is based. Cry harded Cathedral apologist. Academia is dying and Nick Land drew first blood

[Anonymous No.19167108]

>>19165690
Any philosophy outside of ethics is a waste of time to be frank.
The best use of philosophy is when it happens to influence someone interested in actually grounded matters.

[Anonymous No.19167114]

Kant and Balzono are the height of continental and then it goes to shit.

[Anonymous No.19167252]

>>19167108
Ethics is just an ever shifting set of rules on how to avoid being lynched. Far and away the most boring branch of philosophy, about as deep as an inflatable pool. Not to be confused with Spinoza's Ethics which is 1. not about ethics and 2. based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.19167257]

>>19165726
This, most /lit/ards don't even know what Continental philosophy means.

[Anonymous No.19167281]

>>19167252
No philosophy has depth.
Ethics has the most actual applicability and says the most about what makes humans, human.

[Anonymous No.19167324]

>>19167281
What exactly is applicable about ethics? Are you going to devise a system of ethics that is anything other than a rubber stamp of what's already acceptable as social convention? Are you going to "study" and apply an unethical ethics? There is nothing for the ethical philosopher to produce which isn't already in production—what could be more useless and inapplicable than redundancy?

[Anonymous No.19167325]

>>19166021
Husserl's Ideas, Crisis, and Cartesian Meditations

[Anonymous No.19167329]

>>19167114
And Brentano, Bolzano's most gifted student

[Anonymous No.19167339]

>>19167257
Most don't know what analytic is either

[Anonymous No.19167359]

>>19167324
Creating the guidelines that people live by.
Every creed you can think of was developed by someone or some movement that others followed.
Finding the guidelines that give you a moral path in life.
You will find ethics systems that change your view on what is moral or immoral, and broaden your horizons on how lives are meant to be lived.

[Anonymous No.19167370]

>>19167359
That's naive self-help. It's not an attempt to understand the why at all. Just "here's a set of rules, shut up and be a good person." Hyperprotestantism, moralistic therapeutic deism, etc.

[Anonymous No.19167382]

>>19167370
And figuring out what those rules are is the peak use of philosophy.
There's no value to metaphysics. It will never be relevant outside of academia. No one takes it seriously and it has no grounding.

The search for what is ethical, what is the right way to act, to run society, to judge the world, that has value.
That is applicable and has real world results to debate and assess.
The why is in extrapolated or documented real world consequences of actions. This is what sets ethics apart from many branches. It actually has materialistic conclusions.

[Anonymous No.19167399]

>>19167382
>There's no value to metaphysics
Yes all those "ethical" people are just doing the right thing devoid of any metaphysical underpinnings, to say nothing of the "unethical" people

[Anonymous No.19167417]

>>19167399
There is no direct connection between them.
You can be a philosopher of ethics without ever bothering with metaphysics.
Even those that did both, Kant for example, have a definite division between their metaphyiscs and their ethics.
The sections of Critique of Pure Reason dealing with metaphysics and Kant's moral philosophy are overall rather sparsely linked. You could totally reject one and still agree with his work on the other without issue.

[Anonymous No.19167421]

>>19165690
a lot of analytic have come to embrace psychoanalysis as worthwhile since brandom and lawvere revitalized hegel

[Anonymous No.19167439]

>>19167417
>You can be a philosopher of ethics without ever bothering with metaphysics.
Defaulting to nihilism is still a metaphysical position

[Anonymous No.19167478]

The primary sin of analytic philosophy is developing 20 different kinds of "isms" (internalist-realist-coherentist-materialist-fallibilist-compatibilist-tychist-voluntarist) to reach the perfect description of something that neither matters nor exists outside of the research paper they are writing. It is absolutely peak autism, and dreadfully painful to watch. Nonetheless, adherents to this camp are at least honest in their autistic endeavours.

The continental sin is just writing literal nonsense, like Baudrillard. This can at least be entertaining, but the real annoyance comes from when these smug charlatans that can be enjoyed as the jesters they are ARE TAKEN SERIOUSLY by insufferable twitter-philosophyfags with profile pics on foggy autumn nights in black and white, who pretend that "Nothing is wholly obvious without becoming enigmatic. Reality itself is too obvious to be true." is anything more than Baudrillard pulling your leg, that Mark Fisher is actually worth reading, and that Bataille had anything interesting to say and isn't just a cringy edgelord with a veneer of intellectualism.

Both are unfathomably gay, but as should be always remembered, not everything that falls into either camp sins in the manner of the camp.

[Anonymous No.19167676]

>>19165690
No philosophy

[Anonymous No.19167709]

>>19167091
not an academoid. Just an "indendepent thinker"

[Anonymous No.19167722]

With continental hermeneutics you can learn analytic philosophy and learn its history and underlying preconceptions and biases, on top of whatever else you study, from classical to modern philosophy. With analytic philosophy you can learn whatever tiny pseudo-mathematical and wannabe mathematical subset of analytic philosophy you get funneled into.

[Anonymous No.19167725]

Natural philosophy

[Anonymous No.19167730]

>>19167478
>hating on Bataille
>posting about philosophy on an anonymous exotic porn forum
You're dense

[Anonymous No.19167814]

>>19166021
The German Idealists: Kant’s Critiques, Schelling and Fichte’s stuff on knowledge, and the Phenomenology of Spirit

[Anonymous No.19167822]

Read everything. Try to understand all perspectives, even those you do not like on an instinctual level so that you can counter them with more than sentiment.

[Anonymous No.19167831]

>>19167814
also >>19167325 and Being and Nothingness
no particular order though

[Anonymous No.19167865]

>>19167722
This is true

But analytic philosophy is starting to develop a more historical-hermeneutical approach, especially when you look at recent works like Being and Thought by Irad Kimhi and Sebastian Rödls Categories of the Temporal, both which revolve around Frege

Analytic philosophy is finally starting to reflect on its origins in Frege and his anti-psychologism

[Anonymous No.19167869]

>>19167865
Thinking and Being by Irad Kimhi*

[Anonymous No.19167906]

>>19165690
Russell was an Analytic so Continental

[Anonymous No.19168155]

>>19167730
>NOOOO! BATAILLE ISN'T CRINGE! IT'S A REALLY COOL STORY ABOUT PEE PEE AND POO POO, IT'S JUST TOO INTELLECTUAL FOR YOU!
Absolute and superlative cringe.

[Anonymous No.19168181]

>>19168155
Kuhn cunt.

[Anonymous No.19168447]

>>19168155
>too intellectual for you
Apparently so

[Anonymous No.19169058]

>>19165690
It depends on what you're trying to understand. This is like asking "Biology or physics?"

[Anonymous No.19169144]

ITT: A bunch of people who haven't read a lick of modern analytic philosophy comparing quasi fiction to outdated underpinnings of analytic philosophy that no one really cares about anymore.

And if you have encountered it and don't understand the universal importance/value of analytic philosophy you are likely stupid or lazy or both.

[Anonymous No.19169171]

>>19168155
why do you think bataille have nothing interesting to say?, his views in religion are pretty neat and original to me. also, i think he is clearer in his thought and expression than baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.19169181]

Continental soul with Analytic writing is the ultimate combo

[Anonymous No.19169204]

>>19169181
What does "continental soul" even mean?

[Anonymous No.19169254]

>>19169204
schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.19169653]

Analytic psychology and occultism is the final red-pill

[Anonymous No.19169686]

>>19167091
Land is too continental for my taste. Read Yarvin.

[Anonymous No.19169920]

>>19167421
Psychoanalysis was a part of analytic philosophy before WWII.

[Anonymous No.19169997]

>>19165690
>i dont accept dogma
Logical positivism was pure dogma

[Anonymous No.19170075]

>>19169144
>the universal importance/value of analytic philosophy
There is none. All analytics have done for the past 50 years is try incompetently to get at the same things continentals have already been doing for two centuries.

Analytics need to face up to the fact that "analytic philosophy" is simply a roundabout way of describing philosophical parochialism in Britain and the Anglosphere, as a result of the lapse of proper philosophy curricula after the demise of British idealism, whatever its faults may have been. The additional narrowmindedness caused by the imported Fregean logicism and Vienna positivism, under the disastrous intellectual leadership of malicious philistines like Russell and the younger Ayer, only worsened the problem. By the time the problem was understood by a minority of Englishmen, it had already done horrible damage to Anglosphere philosophical knowledge.

That damage could have been repaired generations ago if the problem had been addressed at its roots. But the sheer inertia of departments filled with arrogant logicists, and too-little-too-late post-postivists and linguistic philosophers themselves educated by logicists and retaining much of their ideas and even more of their narrowmindedness, caused the parochialism of the early and mid-century to metastasize.

Pragmatism was a thoroughly continental development, a child of non-metaphysical readings of Hegel and Kant already current in British and American idealism and culminating in brilliant thinkers like Peirce and James (both well versed in and in dialogue with the continental tradition). Analytic philosophy's laggard assimilation of pragmatism in and after the '50s was a late attempt to breathe life back into a moribund tradition, by giving it late and artificial versions of tools that were already basic in continental thought. Not only that, continental thought absorbed and appreciated pragmatism more quickly and more deeply than analytics did, and analytics mostly squandered the heritage of continentally well-versed and well-connected thinkers like Sellars and Wittgenstein, just like they squandered the neo-Kantian heritage of Vienna positivism in reducing it to Anglo simplifications. Idiots like Brandom and the "Pittsburgh school" are pale imitations of the originality of Sellars and Wittgenstein, doing redundant and derivative work that the British idealists (the original cause of the logicist rebellion) already did.

Analytic philosophy is a bad and tragic tradition. All the examples of "good analytics" like Sellars and Wittgenstein are good because they were effectively continental and were almost always conversant with the continental tradition. Good analytic philosophy that doesn't fit this description, like some of Quine, is usually just a wooden, shitty version of something better expressed a century prior, without the benefit of knowing this, because people like Quine are ignorant of prior philosophy because they were reared on truth tables.

[Anonymous No.19170125]

>>19170075
I agree with the general sentiment, but Quine was well-read even in obscure scholastic philosophers.

[Anonymous No.19170143]

>>19165690
The fallibility of our senses is a problem the analytics cannot solve.

[Anonymous No.19170161]

continentals having a premature victory march offer Brandom like they did with Rory decades prior
I imagine it will go much the same way in the end. Analytic philosophy will continue to go on because it’s the only way of doing any sort of real philosophical inquiry, and continental philosophers will go on trying to be celebrities and coming up with new ways to try and win by putting a fresh coat of paint on an old man doing deliberately deceptive history of philosophy work. It’s honestly such a drag.
>>19170075
Pr you can be like this guy and use a lot of words to say nothing at all. I think so what Kant was warning us about when he said we should not confuse the history of philosophy with philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.19170163]

>>19170125
When guys like Quine do engage with the wider philosophical tradition it's usually in a deracinated way. They mine "classic texts" for "classic problems" to present for discussion, usually by subjecting them to some formalism that actually flays them out of shape. There has been a steady increase in analytics grumbling about this over the last several decades, because invariably as more of them go read the texts with better background knowledge (no longer restricted by their smug analytic teachers telling them to "leave history of philosophy at the door"), and as they engage more with the established continental interpretative traditions (which provide lots of food for thought), they are shocked to find that the "classic" presentation of the "classic" problem was a mutilation of the original philosophy.

I've never read Quine on the scholastics so I can't say if that's what he did but this is common. Look at Barnes' book on the pre-Socratics, it's embarrassing. Much of Anglosphere classical philosophy is just analytics with spotty fading schoolboy Greek twisting the ancient sources to provide "classic problem" fodder.

[Anonymous No.19170208]

>>19170161
Knowing where the ideas you are engaging with came from so you can see them from as many angles as possible while working with them yourself isn't "history," it's essential to understanding.

Wittgenstein called it philosophical grammar, continentals call it hermeneutics, pragmatists sometimes call it coherentism or instrumentalism, but ordinary people just call it actually fucking understanding what you're reading on its own terms, as it was originally thought and intended, instead of violently reducing it to forms that already exist in your head.

Enjoy rewriting Brandom's rewriting of Hegel's rewriting of afterthoughts of post-Hegelian pragmatists though, I'm sure your BA thesis on a key logical lemma in the ethics of climate change policy-making is fascinating.

[Anonymous No.19170221]

>>19170163
The readings from content also philosophy is mutilation for sport. To call them readings is Ann insult to the act of reading itself.

[Anonymous No.19170224]

>>19170208
>Enjoy rewriting Brandom's rewriting of Hegel's rewriting of afterthoughts of post-Hegelian pragmatists though, I'm sure your BA thesis on a key logical lemma in the ethics of climate change policy-making is fascinating.
Oops, Hartmann's* not Hegel's.

[Anonymous No.19170338]

>>19170208
If. A complete understanding of history we’re possible in such a way I would absolutely agree, but given the tendency of continental thinkers and their defenders to present the history of philosophy in a way that is always full of holes and most convenient to whatever their political agenda is. Kant seemed to understand this when he issued that statement. Even tif such a continental have a premature victory march offer Brandon like they did with Rory decades prior
I imagine it will go much the same way in the end. Analytic philosophy will continue to go on because it’s the only way of doing any sort of real philosophical inquiry, and continental philosophers will go on trying to be celebrities and coming up with new ways to try and win by putting a fresh coat of paint on an old man doing deliberately deceptive history of philosophy work. It’s honestly such a drag.
>>19170075
Pr you can be like this guy and use a lot of words to say nothing at all. I think so what Kant was warning us about when he said we should not confuse the history of philosophy with philosophy itself. perfect understanding could be be had, I would still only think it helpful rather than essential. The way it is done in the continental is boot only inadequate, but shameful.
Second, the problems being detached is not a bad thing at all. Even if they different in more than just their presentation from those of the past, it in no way makes them bad or wrong. Chances are they’re perfectly legitimate philosophical questions that frustrate continental all thinkers because they have no way easily accommodating them (go look up Deleuze’s impotent whining about Bouveresse for a good example). It’s a good reminder that continental thinkers are more about posturing and being celebrities than actually doing philosophy.
> Enjoy rewriting Brandom's rewriting of Hegel's rewriting of afterthoughts of post-Hegelian pragmatists though, I'm sure your BA thesis on a key logical lemma in the ethics of climate change policy-making is fascinating.
One, if I were a student, I’d do my do my due diligence to actively avoid professor who engages with Hegel or anything related to him (which is a shame because I I do think there is a certain value in Marx.), so I would never rewrite such a thing.
Second, for people who complain the analytic tradition is detached from the world and life, you picked something far more relevant and meaningful than a master’s thesis comparing the biopolitical relations found YA novels set in post-capitalist worlds.

[Anonymous No.19170378]

Its not the mid 20th century anymore, the traditions are more or less blended at this point.

[Anonymous No.19170410]

>>19170208
If a complete understanding of history we’re possible in such a way, I would absolutely agree, but given the tendency of continental thinkers and their defenders to present the history of philosophy in a way that is always full of holes and most convenient to whatever their political agenda is. Kant seemed to understand this when he issued that statement. Even if such an understanding had been achieved I think so what would still only think it helpful rather than essentialThe way it is done in the continental is boot only inadequate but shameful.
Second, the problems being detached is not a bad thing at all. Even if they different in more than just their presentation from those of the past, it in no way makes them bad or wrong. Chances are they’re perfectly legitimate philosophical questions that frustrate continental all thinkers because they have no way easily accommodating them (go look up Deleuze’s impotent whining about Bouveresse for a good example). It’s a good reminder that continental thinkers are more about posturing and being celebrities than actually doing philosophy.
> Enjoy rewriting Brandom's rewriting of Hegel's rewriting of afterthoughts of post-Hegelian pragmatists though, I'm sure your BA thesis on a key logical lemma in the ethics of climate change policy-making is fascinating.
One, if I were a student, I’d do my do my due diligence to actively avoid professor who engages with Hegel or anything related to him (which is a shame because I I do think there is a certain value in Marx.), so I would never rewrite such a thing.
Second, for people who complain the analytic tradition is detached from the world and life, you picked something far more relevant and meaningful than a master’s thesis comparing the biopolitical relations found YA novels set in post-capitalist worlds.
It’s never a good idea to make long posts on a phone.

[Anonymous No.19170492]

>>19167417
Imagine finding the Critique of Practial Reason more important than The Critique of Pure Reason, I will never understand analytic shills

[Anonymous No.19170503]

>>19167417
You don't know what you're talking about. You've never read Kant. Your ideas about the """use""" of philosophy are worthless and not even worth discussing except in the sense of their metanarrative. Why anybody cares about making such statements is beyond me.
It's not that you genuinely think your own personal ethos need not be grounded in metaphysical or epistemological assumptions, but you dont want to justify your presumptions that are hoisted on others.
This is clear enough just by comparison. I don't give a shit if a Linux or windows variant is more """useful""" for society based on it's use in a warehouse, and neither do 99% of people. Nobody extolls the value and use of Excel over whether this new alternative really gets the job done, ergo stop using Excel spreadsheets. All discussion of ethics, or even of "use," have metaphysical assumptions about being, and assumptions about knowledge thereof. Those who only care about ethics have a tyrannical metaphysics. Everyone must accept their metaphysics without use of reason. This is how leftists utilitarians argue (Peter Singer), and it's pure retardation when you examine their actual arguments.
Philosophy must first start in the self by use of wisdom and reason, not about some vague horsehit of improving society, as if I should give a shit about increasing GDP or venture capitalists having more money via efficiency of production. Having an opinion about the right application of pipefitting society is useless. Not in general, because it's impossible to say something is universally useless, but it's useless to me because I neither need nor want it.

[Anonymous No.19170528]

>>19170503
Precisely. If you do not ground your morals in some type of metaphysics, your pursuit will be arbitrary. You'll basically be starting from a presumption, and working to prove that presumption is a infallible fact. Laughable.

[Anonymous No.19170566]

>>19170503
>>19170528
watch this video and educate yourself, pseuds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgJoLw-wjmY

[Anonymous No.19170630]

>>19170566
...was that supposed to be a refutation?

[Anonymous No.19170641]

>>19170630
I know it's hard to cope with being BTFO, but you'll get over it.

[Anonymous No.19170656]

>>19170566
>muh skepticism isn't pragmatic
You are not a great thinker and you will never understand philosophy

[Anonymous No.19170661]

>>19170641
Imagine everybody unanimously agreeing with you. That's how retarded your refutation was.

[Anonymous No.19170669]

>>19170661
>missing the point this much
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19170696]

Roger Scruton synthesised the two schools quite well.

[Anonymous No.19170697]

>>19170669
>posts a video that contains no criticism of metaphysics
>"you missed the point of the video!"

[Anonymous No.19170701]

>>19170697
>posts a video that contains no criticism of metaphysics
Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.19170759]

>>19170701
Imagine thinking that video criticised metaphysics, at best it was a criticism of philosophy in a pedagogical environment.
Your argument is as weak as an analytical philosophers sense of ontology

[Anonymous No.19170768]

>>19170759
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19170791]

>>19170768
Your argument failed, chud. Just take it like a man

[Anonymous No.19170919]

>>19170503
>Not in general, because it's impossible to say something is universally useless, but it's useless to me because I neither need nor want it.
It’s not at all surprising to someone in the tradition of philosophizing to obtain celebrity status to have such a narrow and self-centered view of thought itself.