/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7409382]

Do people really take analytical philosophy seriously? It's either a) Sophistry or b) just a long winded way of saying "we're not smarter than Hegel." Can anyone here convince me that there's substance to it?

>pic not related

[Anonymous No.7409429]

>>7409382

Bump, I'll take anything

[Anonymous No.7409433]

>>7409382
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.7409454]

>>7409382
analytic phil died with Witty. if you're an analytic today you are probably autist.

[Anonymous No.7409456]

>>7409382
the division is dumb
they are basically doing the same thing, just with a different way of arguing. what analytics have you read?

[Anonymous No.7409460]

>>7409382

[Anonymous No.7409467]

>>7409454
>if you're an analytic today you are probably autist.

This. Or you're a STEM grappling with the inanity of your field but not creative enough to go continental

[Anonymous No.7409473]

>>7409467

STEM spergs struggle with creative abstraction so they try to disregard it.

I personally am completely shit with anything STEM related. It requires a manner of thinking that really isn't in my wheelhouse. I have come to terms with this. They should do the same. People have certain aptitudes for different fields.

[Anonymous No.7409482]

>>7409467
>Stem is inane
Yeah sure maybe the 101 classes, does /lit/ really think that high level math and physics courses are inane?

[Anonymous No.7409486]

always cracks me up reading these types of posts

too cute

[Anonymous No.7409491]

>>7409456
I disagree, the way philosophers on each side of the division treat ethics is very, very different.

[Anonymous No.7409493]

>be continental
>be interdisciplinary by nature
>have semi-phenomenal nearly-cosmic understanding of all western art, literature, philosophy, theory, and history
>tap into the ur-spirit of human destiny
>sense the weltgeist and try to put your dick in it
>smell every paradigm before it shifts
>grow a third eye
>tfw you see analytic plebs smoking stupid pipes and sitting in a dry english glen on a humid midsummer's day talking about how delta isn't sigma unless sigma is delta
>tfw you see through their puny reductivist spirits like looking through tissue paper illuminated by the blaze of plato's sun
>tfw you see the ghost of derrida and a thousand symbolic imps making inappropriate hand gestures around them, beckoning you to guess what they signify

[Anonymous No.7409510]

>>7409382
I thought OP would be a faggot but he's right

[Anonymous No.7409520]

"I'm thinking analytically, free of observer bias"

-no one smart, ever

[Anonymous No.7409599]

>>7409482
That's a question that I frequently ask myself. Einstein said something about the particulars being fuel for big picture creativity - I wonder what it's like to see through the eyes of someone who is top in the field of physics. I wonder if their perception is more profound and creative than a pholosophers. Hegel vs Einstein for example. Or if they only see the surface of things.

[Anonymous No.7409606]

>>7409382
Can someone explain to me what the differences are? Where's the divide?

[Anonymous No.7409614]

>>7409606
Op already explained it. Continentals are frogs, analytics are neckbeards. Also this should be on /his/:

[Anonymous No.7409722]

>>7409493
10/10

[Anonymous No.7410876]

>>7409599
http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi664449817

[Anonymous No.7410893]

>>7409493
>sense the weltgeist and try to put your dick in it

[Anonymous No.7411142]

>>7409614
philosophy is literature retard, do you seriously think this thread was made to discuss the philosophy found in music or videogames?

[Anonymous No.7411263]

>>7409493
I would read you

[Anonymous No.7411269]

[Anonymous No.7411275]

>>7409493
Continentalfaggots btfo
>actual kek

[Anonymous No.7411569]

>>7411269
>Science is for gays

kek'd

[Anonymous No.7413663]

bump

[Anonymous No.7413725]

>>7409382
Both analytical and continental tradition are worth taking seriously, since both keep producing great and original content. Yet asking here it would be pointless, in the same meme-books are commented and authors criticized without even reading them, most of the comments to read will be "analytical are autists" or "continentals are gibberish".

>Can anyone here convince me that there's substance to it?
You opened the thread, so you either you want to be convinced, which means you should be reading instead or asking here, or you already took position and you're looking for validation on an online board, in which case nobody will be able to convince you.
Whether one case or the other, no one here can help you.

[Anonymous No.7413731]

>>7409382
Both analytical and continental tradition are worth taking seriously, since both keep producing great and original content. Yet asking here it would be pointless, in the same meme-books are commented and authors criticized without even reading them, most of the comments to read will be "analytical are autists" or "continentals are gibberish".

>Can anyone here convince me that there's substance to it?
You opened the thread, so you either you want to be convinced, which means you should be reading instead of asking here, or you already took position and you're looking for validation (like most threads to be found here), in which case nobody will be able to convince you.
Whether one case or the other, no one here can help you.

[Anonymous No.7413732]

>>7409454
Didn't analytic philosophy only really start with Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.7413737]

>>7413732
Exactly

[Anonymous No.7413746]

>>7409606
Basically analytic philosophy is language philosophy that started with Frege in the late 19th century. When WW2 came along, the analytics flew from Europe to the USA and England and started spreading their influence there. After a while the analytics started to call all those left behind on the european continent the "continentals", which is generally seen as a dejorative term collecting in all kinds of (often unrelated) stuff like phenomenologists, psycho-analytics, existentialists, feminists, yadda yadda.

Basically analytics are about science while "continentals" are about humanity.

[Anonymous No.7413798]

>>7413746
>analytics are about science
>"continentals" are about humanity.

[Anonymous No.7413821]

>>7413798
It's the most simple (and superficial) way to explain the distinction, but it is not that invalid.

[Anonymous No.7413977]

>>7413821
>it is not that invalid

[Anonymous No.7414004]

>>7413746
>Basically analytics are about science while "continentals" are about humanity.
>Science is something that doesn't pertain to humanity

[Anonymous No.7414009]

>tfw when scientist's experiments only work because god is trolling them an one day he's gonna stop

[Anonymous No.7414126]

>>7409473
You're a useless retard then.

The real world is based on logic and you're likely not talented enough to make it in a creative profession.

Congratulations on being a failure.

[Anonymous No.7414141]

>>7409382
>Do people really take analytical philosophy seriously? It's either a) Sophistry or b) just a long winded way of saying "we're not smarter than Hegel." Can anyone here convince me that there's substance to it?

Yes, very.

a) Depends, what do you mean by Sophistry? Barely anyone analytic attempts to spin their shit around to try and make a point.

b) No, absolutely not.

How do you NOT see substance in it?
What analytics have you read?

It's a challenging matter to grasp and you're likely going to f**k yourself over if you dig right into Wittgenstein.

Do you have any education in logic?

What is your aptitude like in mathematics or other analytic subjects?

If you've never been able to think logically (or in a broader sense, applying established axioms) don't bother, you'll never understand it thoroughly enough to see its value.

[Anonymous No.7414147]

>>7409382

Am I the only one who is seriously saddened by the fact that somewhere there is a human so pathetically angtsy and insecure that they crafted pic related?

Or do you folks do these things ironically?

Or are some pics made ironically and the others through genuine edge.

[Anonymous No.7414151]

I'm struggling on this with Nietzsche atm. The ideas are so semantic - definitions of 'sublimation' etc. that they seem to become almost completely abstract. Is an understanding of science not essential to any informed philosophy? How can you really expect to discover any universal truths without it? Genuine question, no bully pls.

[Anonymous No.7414156]

>How can you really expect to discover any universal truths without it?

I think you're overestimating how seriously philosophers have been taking themselves for the past decades/centuries.

[Anonymous No.7414172]

>>7414151
Science is necessary to answer some but not all philosophical questions. I don't see how science can help with something like political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7414179]

>>7414141
yo, i have a firm understanding of both sentential and predicate logic, plus i know plato and most arguments for/against the philosophy of religion. do i need anything else before getting into Witty?

the only modern analytic philosophy i've read is plantinga and his ilk

[Anonymous No.7414181]

>>7414151
>Is an understanding of science not essential to any informed philosophy?

On this note, remember how Nietzsche literally briefly mentioned how all motion is derived from the Will to Power at the start of BGE and literally said fuck-all about it later?

Nothing, not even a reference to empirical cases despite the fact that he was talking about a fully empirical observation.

You're deluded to think that any philosopher can come up with "universal truths".

The field is highly self-referential at this point and has been ever since around WWII.

People have been criticizing philosophers for doing fuck-all that matters ever since the greeks (think about the story of Thales/Heraclitus (one of the two, forgot which one) following down a ditch because he was too busy looking at the stars, not to mention all the people accusing Plato of wasting his time in useless contemplation in many of his dialogues).

Of course, the further in history we advanced the more sidelined it got.

[Anonymous No.7414199]

>>7414147
your digits have a nice symmetry

>Or do you folks do these things ironically?
How long have you been on 4chan friend


>captcha was feet

>>7409382
>Can anyone here convince me that there's substance to it?

read up on parfait, chalmers, plantinga, singer, lewis and benatar.
>inb4 pleb
If you are looking for an introduction, these are some of the more "gripping" analyticians. Either way they should go to show that there IS more to analytics than mere sophistry

[Anonymous No.7414200]

>>7414181
He didn't give a shit about answering the questions of physics. That was fucking far removed from the point of BGE.

[Anonymous No.7414203]

>>7414151
You should read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The point is that science tends to ignore other forms of "knowing" like intuition or reflection, and base itself around complete adherence to empiricism, even though empiricism has plenty of arguments against itself.

[Anonymous No.7414207]

>>7414179
>sentential and predicate logic

You can try but really the people most qualified to understand analytic philosophy are pure mathematics students who can understand English, note that many of the big names in the field had a background in mathematics.

I mean, topics such as Real Analysis.
More than anything its probably the firm focus on establishing a coherent train of thought that affected them.

[Anonymous No.7414212]

>>7414126
>The real world is based on logic
Logicism died quite a while ago bro.

[Anonymous No.7414213]

>>7414203
>science tends to ignore other forms of "knowing" like intuition or reflection

Are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.7414217]

>>7414213
No. Why would I?

[Anonymous No.7414220]

>>7414213
Scientism exists, but its not that. It's the idea that you can bend the scientific method to answer any question, empirical or not.

Which is hilariously wrong.

[Anonymous No.7414225]

Analytic philosophy is substantive when talking about consciousness and probably nothing else.

[Anonymous No.7414231]

>>7414220
>It's the idea that you can bend the scientific method to answer any question,

Close to no one believes this.

>>7414217

What sort of intuition and reflection are you referring to?

You mean something along the lines of "consciousness cannot be functionally explained by the movement of neurons"?

[Anonymous No.7414234]

>>7414231
>Close to no one believes this.
I wish I would know as little about Reddit as you.

[Anonymous No.7414235]

>>7414231
>Close to no one believes this.

You clearly haven't been to r/atheism.

[Anonymous No.7414237]

>>7414231
>Close to no one believes this

You're in for a big fucking surprise.

[Anonymous No.7414246]

>>7414231
>Close to no one believes this.

jej

[Anonymous No.7414248]

>>7409382
Its modern meme philosophy

[Anonymous No.7414253]

>>7414234
>I wish I would know as little about Reddit as you.
>Reddit

You're making statements about science.

Would I base my generalizations of what "literature" entails on what the pigs in my backyard have to say about the brilliance of James Joyce?

Scientism, if it is the idea that science can "answer any question, empirical or not" would gladly be welcomed as bat-shit retarded by most scientists.

Browse /sci/ once in a while, you should see how butthurt some of those autists get when physicists gloss over redundant intricacies in their textbooks (it's still a community of undergrads but based of experience I can say that a lot of those sentiments are carried on to higher levels of academia).

[Anonymous No.7414256]

>>7414234
>>7414235
>>7414237
>>7414246
Not that anon, but other than some edgy people on the internet, I've never found someone who believes this.

[Anonymous No.7414274]

>>7414253
>You're making statements about science.
No, I'm making a statement about what people believe about science. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.7414280]

>>7414253

>Scientism, if it is the idea that science can "answer any question, empirical or not" would gladly be welcomed as bat-shit retarded by most scientists.

I'm glad you're so optimistic. There are plenty of STEMfags who roundly dismiss every other field of academia as either pseudoscientific or useless.

[Anonymous No.7414281]

>>7414253
>you should see how butthurt some of those autists get when physicists gloss over redundant intricacies in their textbooks

My point being that scientists are busy enough with their own empirical problems to care about generalizing their theories to anything grandiose (to the extent of "answering every question" that is).

I guess if you pester some of them on a casual basis about say their beliefs on god they'll probably mention that they don't think it's logical to believe in it (or something vaguely along those lines), they will then be more than happy to agree that you can't decisively make any such judgements and blah blah blah problems of induction yada yada yada, they will then go on with their empirical research based on the pragmatic notion of the past repeating itself.

Of course they would also spend this entire time judging you in their head for being a dumb humanities expert and take a toilet break to jizz on a printout of GRE/IQ scores by college major they carry in their backpocket, but just because most of them are condescending asshats doesn't mean they firmly believe ideologies as crazy as "Scientism", it's more of a casual opinion they haven't bothered to mold since they'd rather spend their time on their research (although some of them have cultivated an opinion in philosophy, see https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node44.html).).

[Anonymous No.7414287]

>>7414281
Philosophers and Classics majors score higher on standardized tests than most STEMfags.

[Anonymous No.7414290]

>>7414280
>STEMfags who roundly dismiss every other field of academia as either pseudoscientific or useless

These are probably the insecure undergrads, everyone wants something to help them feel like they're ahead in the dick-measuring contest that is life when they are 20.

However, although I wouldn't say they "dismiss" the field, many would likely view it as useless, still they don't have anything against the field on an epidemiological basis and that's what the whole Scientism deal seemed to imply.

It's more of a casual "well they aren't contributing much to society".

[Anonymous No.7414293]

>>7409382
How is the pic not related?

[Anonymous No.7414294]

>>7414281
>Scientists are too busy with research to have firm opinions on the universe.

That's part of the fucking issue.

[Anonymous No.7414301]

>>7414287
>Philosophers and Classics majors

Philosophers, yes.

If by classics you mean literature, I'd like to see a source on that.

Also, chemistry and biology drags the scores down, it's a different deal if you consider physicists and mathematicians.

They're the only experts I'm talking about actually, I sort of forgot folks from the other fields classify as scientists too.

I'm not sure about what non-physicists non-mathematicians think.

[Anonymous No.7414303]

>>7414280
As a STEMfag, I can verify this from my personal experience. Many fields are derided and though some are ridiculed in jest, usually softer sciences, many are truly seen as useless or even detrimental (philosophy, psychology, sociology, political theory, even some bio fields, theology, etc.).

I would say the highest proportion of anti-intelllectuals, save for in some sort of ideological activist-based studies, is in STEM.

[Anonymous No.7414309]

>>7414294
>That's part of the fucking issue.

You have any clue how much benefit research into energy sources could have on the world?

You'd like to risk that for what?

The age of polymaths is long gone, there are no renaissance men anymore, unless there is some exceptional stride in health if everyone tries to expand too much no one will achieve anything new.

No scientific achievements is bad, REAL BAD.

Knowing more and more about less and less is the only way forward for us now.

[Anonymous No.7414319]

>>7414290
>epidemiological
epistemological*

red line? this isn't a word?

[Anonymous No.7414325]

>>7409382

Continental "philosophy" is barely bad literature.

[Anonymous No.7414333]

>>7414274

>science tends to ignore other forms of...

This post seems to have used the word "science" as its subject at which point I assumed you were talking about the beliefs integral to the general body of knowledge that is science.

If you would have said "many "scientists" believe so and so" the case would have been different.

If you would have said that maybe you would have realized the absurdity of what you are declaring since you probably don't know many scientists. You would understand that your claims are baseless.

At this point, you'd think to the source of your claims and then realize that they aren't based on what "scientists" believe but what undergrad STEM majors believe.

[Anonymous No.7414338]

>>7409460

holly kek

[Anonymous No.7414350]

>>7414333
Not him, but almost all of the mainstream New Atheist scientists think that most academic disciplines are worthless.

Richard Dawkins held a position for the public understanding of science, and he derides other academic disciplines as if that's his job.

[Anonymous No.7414359]

>>7414281
>>7414287

Here.

[Anonymous No.7414374]

>>7414350
>Richard Dawkins held a position for the public understanding of science, and he derides other academic disciplines as if that's his job.

Ah, I see the root of this confusion.

I'll try to find the facebook post somewhere, long story short, real scientists in academia consider people like Dawkins to be absolutely worthless trash pop scientists.

There was this story about how some Journals get so elitist that one editor explicitly asked about the credentials of a certain author and spoke of how he was reluctant to one up the article the author submitted because the institution he was from wasn't so prestigious and he "wanted the journal to promote real science, not the kind Dawkins does".

The only ones not so condescending are generally sweet (you need to have some serious Zen to not turn into an asshole within that environment), people like Dawkins are a bit of a minority in actual research circles.

[Anonymous No.7414398]

>>7414309
How many scientists are invested in energy based research? How feasible is it that their solutions will be implemented in this political climate? How fucking flimsy is their focus that they can't dedicate any of their time to other intellectual pursuits?

God, the fucking hubris is incredible.

[Anonymous No.7414410]

>>7414350
Do any of the New Atheist scientists even publish anything relevant aside from anti-religion polemics nowadays? I guess Dennett does, maybe.

[Anonymous No.7414420]

>>7414398
>How many scientists are invested in energy based research? How feasible is it that their solutions will be implemented in this political climate? How fucking flimsy is their focus that they can't dedicate any of their time to other intellectual pursuits?

Majority are not.

Very in-feasible.

They are insanely focused at what they do, pushing out new research in a field such as theoretical physics requires an immense amount of dedication to keeping up with literature with all the new wonderful tools we have in the current generation to investigate things that lead to more research output.

[Anonymous No.7414422]

>>7414290
>It's more of a casual "well they aren't contributing much to society".
I don't even think the people who have that attitude care enough about society to care about contributing to it 2bh. I think it's more of a "I'm the smartest little boy in little boy land - smarter than all of you!" sentiment (one that motivates a lot of people to go into STEM in the first place).

[Anonymous No.7414426]

>>7414410
Well, Dennett is a philosopher, so of course he publishes, else he probably loses his tenure.

[Anonymous No.7414428]

>>7414426
>so of course he publishes, else he probably loses his tenure.
They take away your tenure if you stop publishing in Philosophy? I thought the whole point of tenure was that you can't get it revoked without doing something terrible.

[Anonymous No.7414436]

>>7414410
Guys a spook

>>7414426
>else he probably loses his tenure
Meh', they can probably wing it as deadwood too.
In Philosophy at least they probably care enough about his teaching to let him do what the hell he wants.

[Anonymous No.7414437]

>>7414428
>I thought the whole point of tenure was that you can't get it revoked without doing something terrible.

Yeah in the 1800s. Not in 2015.

[Anonymous No.7414440]

>>7414428
The point was that professors couldn't be evicted for speaking out against prevailing thoughts.

It's sort of a "you can say what the fuck you want now" sticker, or at least it was originally.

[Anonymous No.7414461]

>>7409382
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"

[Anonymous No.7414471]

>>7414461
The only pasta I like less than this one is tortellini.

[Anonymous No.7414477]

>>7414461
>About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.

Okay can we all just admit the guy is famous because he can sing.

He literally "reminded" everyone of a hard problem, how is that an achievement?

[Anonymous No.7414481]

>>7414461
Harris needs to be added to this copypasta.

[Anonymous No.7414490]

>>7414481
>Harris needs to be added to this copypasta.

Dumb people are too dumb to have heard about him, let alone think he is smart.

[Anonymous No.7414513]

>>7414281
>generalizing their theories to anything grandiose (to the extent of "answering every question" that is).
care to elaborate on this?

[Anonymous No.7414537]

>>7414126
Bro there is nothing going on in the "real world" that is logical.

[Anonymous No.7414540]

>>7414426
>pushing philosophers to shit out worthless hack garbage so they don't lose their livelihood and thus their ability to do philosophy in the first place
what the fuck are they doing

[Anonymous No.7414580]

>>7414513
>care to elaborate on this?
In philosophy many writers you likely read are desperate to come up with a consistent, universal world view that their theories can explain (at least this is true for older philosophers), much of Hobbes' Leviathan is there because he wanted to dabble into all sorts of bullshit no one ended up remembering him for.

A physicist studying quantum mechanics would see no reason to spend time doing actual academic research on what quantum mechanics has to say about god existing and free will and all that kind of crap.

They focus on their shit, making theories that can be empirically tested (eventually, hopefully, in some way), search "shut up and calculate!" on google.

It's the gap between what academics do and what the common man sees that is filled with all sorts of bullshit about this and that popsci.

There's a lecture online by this famous scientist called Leonard Susskind on Quantum Entangelment, in the middle of class one of the students (not speaking out of turn) asked him something along the lines of "isn't that quite interesting/unexpected?" to which he responded with something along the lines of "you'll have plenty of time to think about that on your own, as of now I can talk about all kinds of things that are fascinating about this and you would go out of the class knowing nothing more about Quantum Mechanics than when you came in".

[Anonymous No.7414630]

>>7414580
>Don't think about your theories, just shut up and do your work

What a great way to foster engagement and create passion for the material. You're acting as if discoveries in quantam mechanics will have immediate life saving ramifications that will benefit billions.

[Anonymous No.7414655]

>>7409473
Have you ever even done meaningful math? It's nothing but abstraction. Look at abstract algebra, formal probability, or literally anything else past 200-level courses.

[Anonymous No.7414677]

>>7414655
And mathematical research involves a great deal of creativity. Can someone explain why /lit/ seems so hostile to STEM?

[Anonymous No.7414692]

>>7414280
>who roundly dismiss every other field of academia as either pseudoscientific or useless
because they are

[Anonymous No.7414695]

>>7414677
They can't do math.

[Anonymous No.7414704]

>>7414677
Because they resent scientism.

[Anonymous No.7414706]

>>7414677
Probably this>>7414695

[Anonymous No.7414708]

>>7409382
Analytics are just more dishonest because they hide behind scientific terminology to instil a sense of objectivity and authority.

It's pseudo-science, whereas continental philosophy is more honest nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7414719]

>>7414677
Hostility towards stem tends to be a reaction to Dunning–Kruger suffering pop-sci types like Dawkins, Hawking, Feynmann and their fedora followers who dismiss philosophy for all the wrong reasons.

Mathematicians tend to be exempt from the hostility since they actually know their way around abstractions and aren't insufferable worshippers of pseudo-empiricism.

[Anonymous No.7414726]

>>7414719
I wouldn't call Hawking or Feynman popsci, they've made important contributions to physics and Feynman won a Nobel.

[Anonymous No.7414728]

>>7414630

How the fuck can they do their work without thinking about their theories?

Tell me you're underage, please

[Anonymous No.7414739]

>>7414726
Popsci refers to their publicity stunts, people are aware of their intelligence but if a genius creates masterpiece painting and then shits on it before putting on display he's still a dick.

[Anonymous No.7414741]

>>7414677
Prolly just a reaction to the trend in some western societies that suggests that the importance of science impinges on the importance of literature as vehicles to understand the human experience. In 1900, everyday people read poetry for fun - it was printed in newspapers, etc - whereas nowadays they're cutting arts classes for science classes in secondary schools. That sorta thing.

[Anonymous No.7414744]

>>7414719
Not philosophy as much as theology /eastern philosophy types.

[Anonymous No.7414749]

>>7414726
>Feynman
Path Integrals, Feynman Diagrams, QED,...
Definitely the most important physicist of the second half of the 20th century.
>Hawking
He did a couple semi-important things. However he is not nearly as important as the media makes him out to be.

[Anonymous No.7414756]

>>7414726
Their contributions aren't the problem, it's their moonlighting as opinion makers that is. A lot of these people who are genius in their fields are borderline retarded outside of it, and asking Hawking about philosophy is like asking Tom Cruise about climate change.

[Anonymous No.7414847]

>>7414207
well, i'm a neurosci/philosophy undergrad who knows advanced calculus, linear algebra, etc.

how much more math would i need to know?

[Anonymous No.7414859]

>>7414847
Real analysis is good. Discrete mathematics are really good. It's where I first learned to formally prove things. Abstract algebra is nice, but usually 4 or 500-level.

[Anonymous No.7414867]

>>7414847
>advanced calculus, linear algebra
If those were the usual STEM prerequisite classes then more than that. Any math course that involves proofs and building a body of knowledge up from axioms like you do in the usual real analysis or algebra courses, and 2bh before you take those two courses you literally know nothing about math as modern mathematics understands it.

[Anonymous No.7414874]

>>7409493
beautiful, someone should cap this

[Anonymous No.7414884]

>>7410876
that looks really cool, do you know when it's coming out?

[Anonymous No.7414887]

>>7414490
the entirety of Harris' fanbase consists of dumb people

[Anonymous No.7414892]

>>7414859
Textbook recommendations?

[Anonymous No.7414897]

>>7409382
>philosophy
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.7414969]

>>7414359

E S T I M A T E D

[Anonymous No.7415005]

>>7413731
>>7413731
>You opened the thread, so you either you want to be convinced, which means you should be reading instead of asking here,

That's what I'm asking. I want you to give me a laundry list of materials, or even recent research, that can help me substantiate analytical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7415015]

>>7414141
>Do you have any education in logic?
>What is your aptitude like in mathematics or other analytic subjects?
>If you've never been able to think logically (or in a broader sense, applying established axioms) don't bother, you'll never understand it thoroughly enough to see its value.

This is exactly what I mean when I have misgivings towards analytical research. No one ever posits any real contribution to ideas, they just fall back on, "it's logic BRO, just get the LOGIC man!"

I want proof of one philosophical idea that's been discovered by analytical philosophers. One concept that's been proved, or broken. And by proof I don't mean, "here it is," I mean describing the nature by which they came to their conclusion, and why they needed their rats nests of logic to do it.

[Anonymous No.7415111]

>>7414359
is an iq of 145 high enough to even bother trying to do physics? I really enjoy it but I'm just not that good at it. I feel like I'm just too dumb to make any meaningful contribution to the field

[Anonymous No.7415119]

>>7414677
STEM people shit on liberal arts majors all the time as useless majors, which to a person not very talented or passionate about the major, is true. It is also true with cultural studies. The extension of the mentality of the STEM students is that the liberal arts in general are useless, an opinion they often laud as fact. STEM people are just huge elist fags a lot of the time.

[Anonymous No.7415283]

>>7414892
I hear Understanding Analysis by Stephen Abbot is really good. The Nature of Computation by Moore and Mertens is awesome, but it's a doorstopper.

[Anonymous No.7415317]

>>7415283
Thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.7415327]

>>7415317
No problem.

[Anonymous No.7415338]

>>7415111
Feeling like you have no idea about anything in your field except for a few trivial things is the default feeling of math and physics grad students in my experience.

[Anonymous No.7415363]

>Other ways if knowing
What the fuck does that even mean? In the context of science and math you cannot be handwavy or subjective.

Also empiricism, being whatever the next faggot wants it ti be, may be flawed, but it still the best way we have to reach conlutions. All of the 20th century science shows that nature doesn't follow human intuition or feeling, so why bother?

[Anonymous No.7415367]

>>7415363
->
>>7414009

[Anonymous No.7415478]

>>7415363
>that nature doesn't follow human intuition or feeling


If you say the nature doesn't follow presupposed human axioms, you are nonetheless taking the inward turn towards human concepts, even if purely in a negative way.

[Anonymous No.7415625]

>>7414969
It's got from converting GRE scores, very, very inaccurate, you get the jist though.

>>7415111
>is an iq of 145 high enough

145 seems to high for you, where did you get your IQ test and what SD is that on?
(Was it the ones conducted at mental health clinics for troubled youth and such, because those tend to be inflated since why the fuck would they make troubled kids feel retarded).

[Anonymous No.7415634]

>>7415015
>I want proof of one philosophical idea that's been discovered by analytical philosophers. One concept that's been proved, or broken. And by proof I don't mean, "here it is," I mean describing the nature by which they came to their conclusion, and why they needed their rats nests of logic to do it.

Discovered implies a certain amount of truth.

They have made no such discovery, no one in the continental world has either.

Also, no one on 4chan is educated enough to post any real contribution of ideas because no one here understands analytic philosophy.

Most people are here more to brag about how big their proverbial or real dicks are.

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/II/II-lecture-notes/ii-gwt9.pdf
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/II/II-lecture-notes/ii-gwt6.pdf
http://www2.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/Tripos/Essay/Past_Exams/II_Paper_12-2012.pdf

http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/philosophy-major-giod-or-no-giod-p

[Anonymous No.7415646]

>>7415634
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/II/II-lecture-notes/ii-gwt1.pdf

[Anonymous No.7415662]

>>7415634
>>7415646

Thanks. I will look over these.

[Anonymous No.7415849]

>>7415625
some random child psychologist when I was a kid because I was acting like an autist in school. SD 15 I believe.

[Anonymous No.7415878]

>>7414359
>>7415625
>converting GRE scores

That's dumb as fuck. Tons of people who take the GREs are 170 + 6.0 on verbal/analytical and retard tier in quant. The only reason philosophy is higher than history/anthropology is because it has analytics in it and they tend to be more mathy. But there are god-given supergeniuses in the humanities who know fuckall math.

Dumb way to do it. Might be more accurate for the STEM types since verbal intelligence (do you know enough Latin to be able to guess archaisms?) and the ability to write convincingly (about the advisability of opening a sports store in a fictional small town full of fat people, in under 15 minutes.. GOGOGO! YOUR ACADEMIC FUTURE DEPENDS ON THIS, NO MULLIGANS!) is maybe a better test of "general intelligence," but you can just not know math. Hell, the GRE's math section if all high school formulae, too. I know high level mathfags who would joke about how they would bomb it because they haven't done that kind of shit in years. It's so fucking specific and arbitrary. It's not broad or general at all, if you are good enough to get a higher set of questions.

[Anonymous No.7415981]

>all analytics are positivists
>all analytics subscribe to scientism

When will this meme die?

[Anonymous No.7416021]

>>7415981
When you do. Hurry!

[Anonymous No.7416107]

>>7414126
Now this is what I like to see. haha fucking stemfags

[Anonymous No.7416122]

>>7415981
what are the breakthrough of analytics ?

[Anonymous No.7416134]

>>7415634
this is right. non-continental philosophers are failed logicians.

[Anonymous No.7416142]

>>7415981
What is the problem with positivism and scientism?

[Anonymous No.7416284]

>>7414719
you should realize that /sci/ hates pop sci more than anyone else does

also Feynman isn't popsci

[Anonymous No.7416302]

>>7409473
I'm good at both and a lot of the people I knew in STEM were, the smartest people I knew were also the best artists

[Anonymous No.7416400]

>>7416122
What are the breakthroughs of continentals?

>>7416142
garbage. Arrogant and self refuting ways to look at the world

[Anonymous No.7416407]

>>7415634
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are to do with mathematical logic. Knowledge involves evidence and experiment too. As for noumena, that's an issue in its own right. Can you show me some? The synthetic apriori truths are an issue too. They're rather like "the laws of physics". They don't have any ontological reality. It's like the Terry Pratchett quote: "Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and seive it through the finest seive, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy". What exists is space and waves and things. They do what they do because of the way they are, not because of truth or law.

Let's take a look at the theorems. I think the Wiki articles are pretty good:

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (i.e., any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic)".

That's just to do with the natural numbers, which are merely a concept. You cannot point up to the clear night sky and say "look, there's a seven". It doesn't have a huge amount to do with the real world of science and observation and experiment. The other one is more to do with science, but it still deals with theories and arithmetic truths, which are abstract things:

"For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent."

You cannot point up to the clear night sky and say "look, there's a theory" either. A theory is just a concept too. It describes how things are and it makes predictions, which we test with experiment. All Gödel is really saying is that a theory can't be introspective, it can't prove itself. So whilst this stuff is relevant to maths and logic and theory, you shouldn't read to much into it. But don't think Gödel is a waste of time. See A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. It's by philosopher Palle Yourgrau, and IMHO it's of crucial importance to understanding space and waves and things. To understanding the world and the reality that's out there. I can hold my hands up and show you a space, I can waggle my hands and show you motion. But can you show me time?

[Anonymous No.7416413]

>>7416400
>What are the breakthroughs of continentals?
>deflecting is an answer

[Anonymous No.7416454]

>>7416413
Maybe you're just too stupid to understand philosophy that isn't worthless ethical and sociological posturing. Analytics have contributed far more to epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophical logic than their apparent reputation as a bunch of soulless positivists implies. The Vienna Circle was a small group, not every philosopher of the Analytic tradition. Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine, Lewis, Armstrong, Kripke, and so on were not positivists. That's my fucking answer

[Anonymous No.7416825]

>>7416284
>also Feynman isn't popsci
He's a cringeworthy fedora philistine at least:

>"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."

Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

[Anonymous No.7416990]

>>7409382
Why is /pol/ always right?

[Anonymous No.7417273]

>>7414630
>You're acting as if discoveries in quantam mechanics will have immediate life saving ramifications
>what are MRI scans
>what is all modern information technology
>lol quantum mechanics must be useless because I don't know anything about it