/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5363708]

What is the difference between Continental Philosophy and Analytic Philosophy?
Is there a difference?
What are some famous figures of both?
Which one is, in your opinion, the more relevant?

>pic unrelated

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5363731]

I don't know. They fight for some reason.

[Anonymous No.5363744]

>>5363708
both are retarded but in different ways.

[Anonymous No.5363754]

>>5363744
>both are retarded but in different ways
Why are they retarded?
What are their difference?

[Anonymous No.5363768]

This is the difference. It's mainly a conflict made up by analytics who prefer to fling shit instead of actually discussing things.

[Anonymous No.5363782]

>>5363768
But aren't the Analytic Philosophers more based on Science than the Continentals? So isn't Analytic supposed to be more relevant now (with the progress of Science)?(I'm not defending anyone, I just want to know)

[Anonymous No.5363788]

>>5363782
⇒But aren't the Analytic Philosophers more based on Science than the Continentals?

Most of them oppose science and criticize or even deny it.

[Anonymous No.5363793]

>>5363754
Analytic philosophy is typically positivist, whereas continental philosophy typically isn't. Analytic philosophy tends to speak in strictly logical terms, whereas continental's boss is Nietzsche, who writes in poetic terms.

[Anonymous No.5363796]

>>5363708
All about the style.

Continental isn't as formal in it's approach. For better or worse. Prose is a bigger focus as is style.

Analytic is just as it is titled, a structured formulaic system. The idea is to keep everything grounded so clarity is obtainable and there isn't confusion on meaning.

[Anonymous No.5363797]

>>5363782
Analytics sometimes work along side science, but just as often they'll explain to you why 2 + 2 = 4 is a reified social construct.

[Anonymous No.5363806]

>>5363793
>Analytic philosophy tends to speak in strictly logical terms
Isn't it a good thing?

>Nietzsche, who writes in poetic terms
It's subject to interpretations, so isn't it a "bad" thing for philosophy?

>>5363796
So Analytic Philosophy tends to be clear while Continental are tends to be more Delphic?

[Anonymous No.5363818]

>>5363806
>Isn't it a good thing?
That really depends on your tastes. Hume said reason was a servant of the passions, not vice versa. Something more important to that for many continentals is that you need some angle to come from. Purely abstracted logic doesn't address the real world enough for their taste, so rather they use logic like a color on a palette. Continental philosophy is the modus vivdendi of art and science.

>It's subject to interpretations, so isn't it a "bad" thing for philosophy?
Not for Nietzsche, since one of his ideas is that it is better to see something from as many subjective standpoints as possible, instead of striving for one objective point of view (which he didn't think was possible outside of science).

>So Analytic Philosophy tends to be clear while Continental are tends to be more Delphic?
Analytic strives for clarity above all, continental strives for both clarity and beauty. Some continental philosophers, however, are very straightforward, Foucault's post-famous works being a good example.

[Anonymous No.5363851]

Continental philosophy: "How does power work and accumulate?"

Analytic philosophy: "We will now prove that an object is indeed a thing."

[Anonymous No.5363867]

>>5363851
So it's basically more about the subject

[Anonymous No.5363869]

>>5363793
⇒Analytic philosophy tends to speak in strictly logical terms
>>5363796
⇒Analytic is just as it is titled, a structured formulaic system.
>>5363818
⇒Analytic strives for clarity above all

We all know that this never happened. Analytics are talking out of their ass and by relabeling their opinions as axioms they don't suddenly become logical. The whole thing is a ridiculous farce.

[Anonymous No.5363881]

>>5363867
It's basically that analytic are not interested in any thing of practical application because they only want to deal in abstracted logic and absolute terms. And since real world objects don't work in absolute terms (or when they do, then science deals with that), analytics don't fuck with them.

The best use for analytic is a whetstone for logic, although a study in any of the natural sciences can accomplish that just as well (which is why Nietzsche said every philosopher should study a natural science to understand how very strict logic works).

[Anonymous No.5363899]

>>5363869
>Analytics are talking out of their ass and by relabeling their opinions as axioms they don't suddenly become logical
Isn't it what Platon is all about?

[Anonymous No.5363902]

>>5363899
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5363905]

>>5363899

[Anonymous No.5363907]

>>5363851
⇒"We will now prove that an object is indeed a thing."

But since you cannot prove it without definitions, they have to choose definitions which coincidentally turn the proof into a trivial implication, thus making their endeavour nothing more than a retarded exercise in circular reasoning for the purpose of autism as an end in itself while tipping their hats to each other over how smart they are because they deb8 semantics on kindergarten level.

[Anonymous No.5363920]

>>5363907
You are not wrong.

[Comrade Victor No.5363923]

If they are alike, then they have the same results or conclusions.

[Anonymous No.5363941]

>>5363923
They don't. Analytic deals with such nonsense as metaethics, whereas anyone of intellectual standing knows that right and wrong only exist in the same way that God does: as an expression (OMG!)

Analytics might as well seek to redefine God, it's joke.

[Comrade Victor No.5363945]

>>5363941
This isn't straightforward, so it's like all of the other philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5363953]

>>5363945
Except at least continental philosophy doesn't try to pretend it's as objective as science.

[Anonymous No.5363997]

Continental philosophy doesn't exist, it's just a catch-all term, just like feminism.
It was originally just used as a derogatory term.