Philosophy before the linguistic turn: >God, virtue, nihilism,

Easiest way to win an argument.

File: 1411975937460.png (30KB, 666x408px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 666x408px

>muh language games

>muh feels over reals
They became sentient

what's OP's endgame?

>>1834129

You do realize that plenty of books were written on all the former subjects after and even during the time when the linguistic turn happened right ?

Analytic philosophers just realized that it was futile to talk about things if we had no idea what we were actually saying when we talked about them, hence the analysis of language became important and primary to other subjects. That does'nt mean that they stopped writing on those subjects.

It's as if you took a few undergrad courses where they explained the foundational analytic philosophy of language problems and assumed that you had a comprehensive understanding of the whole movement because of it.

If you are talking about just positivism, then sure the critique sticks, but positivism was extremely short lived and was never totally dominant.

>>1834359
>implying language can and should convincingly speak of beauty and metaphysical truth
>implying the only true philosophy is systematic and rigorously defined
>implying a logical formulation of language does anything than scratch that autism itch

I'm totally open to getting BTFO but every time I ask anal-lytics about any actual insightful and interesting developments in the field I get nothing

I like it, I like reading analytic philosophy. it's smart shits it keeps you sharp, but I'm lmaoing @ ur life if you think it can compete with more traditional philosophy when it comes to actually important questions about existence

>>1834413

"Analytic Philosophy" is just a method of doing philosophy, and it is essentially what Aristotle did, only with a mathematical logic behind it instead of the Organon.

We need to get our language straight so to do any kind of substantive philosophy. If you make a statement like:

God has necessary knowledge of X

We need to be logico-linguistically savy enough to parse out that the person may mean either that.

A.Necessarily God has knowledge of X
B.God has knowledge that necessarily X

Since the two statements are not equivalent.

This is the kind of stuff the Medieval Philosophers were good at, but come the abandoning of logic and language and foundational pillars of philosophy in the Renaissance philosophers started having such garbled thoughts and vague arguments that errors were piled on top of errors in many fields of philosophy. Analytic Philosophy allowed us to correct the errors of the early moderns that were born out of the abandonment of the logico-linguistic approach, and also keep the positive developments that came from the advancement of the sciences and epistemology in that period.

"Analytic Philosophy" as movement is not a "school" of philosophy. It is a method, and one can be a Thomist, a Kantian, a Lewisian, or etc, while maintaining the required logico-linguistic rigor.

The only kind of approached that aren't allowed are things like Lacanian obscurantism( which is good), or something like Nietzsche or Spengler ( which is fine, that kind of philosophy can still exist).
A short list of important developments

1. Kripke raises new means to defend a posteriori necessities.

2. David Lewis defends modal realism, based on the idea that all possible worlds are equally "real" as opposed to just the "actual" possible world we happen to inhabit.

3. Meinong argues that objects are ontologically prior to their being or non-being.

4.Starting with Anscombe, probabalistic accounts of causation start to get more popular.

>>1834413
>trends in 2016+ philo
>bad with analytic
Go read heidegger retard.

>>1834584
Already have, he's based

>>1834569
Yeah that's great and all and I agree with it but I vehemently disagree that philosophy should be about "defending a posteriori necessities", it should be about be about life, the spirit, the highest aims of man, not this stuff. There's obviously a place for this stuff and I enjoy reading it myself but I'd never go to Kripke and Wittgenstein for the same reasons I'd go to Kierkegaard or Shestov, and those reasons are he only thing that makes philosophy worth a damn and not another cloistered academic discipline

>>1834619

Every single subject in philosophy has metaphysical underpinnings like those topics. All those subjects are dealt with in Thomism for example, although Thomism had the same logico-linguistic underpinnings that informs how we answer questions about those subjects.

For example if we can find necessary goods of human beings a posteriori ( so that they are not just based on our concepts) then we can determine what his highest ends should be according to what ends allow those necessary goods to be reached in the highest degree.
We need to do the abstract metaphysical stuff so we can come to a coherent account of the existential stuff. At the very least, even if we don't need it, we certainly can do it that way, and to a very high degree of clarity and rigor - which is a bonus in my eyes.

>>1834872
I got you. It just clicked. Okay that's dope