Why do we take continental philosophy seriously again? I just

>>298904
>Where my Analytic bros at?
Fucking their waifus using modal realism.

>>299050
based

bymp

>>298904
Analytic/continental is a meaningless distinction. There are no "Departments of Analytic/Continental Philosophy". It's basically slang.

File: phenomenology of spirit.jpg (164KB, 462x492px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 462x492px

>>298904
>I just can't trust something that makes so many baseless assumptions.
please read philosophy first please
>Philosophy should side with maths and science not forget all the personal opinons?
fedora
>Why do we take continental philosophy seriously again?
Because it is still the only way of doing philosophy while using pure logic. Analytics think they are so logical because they didn't read and understood Hegel properly. The base of philosophy is logic based on reality with is to find the links in the Absolute. Also try reading phenomenology

>meaning can only exist in language
>only sense data is verifiable, even if this statement isn't

Stay keked

>>298904
>Why do we take continental philosophy seriously again?
there is no continental vs analytical philosophy
there are only those who write philosophy and those who pretend

>>299514
No, but there are entire departments that are literally entirely one or the other.

>>300471
>calls science-based philosophy fedora
>subscribes to a bunch of coffe house superstitious faggotry

File: 1448161205921.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

Daily reminder that ideas only have relevance in terms of their practical consequences. Your childish self-contained tinker toys philosophy only serves to sate your autistic urges and abase your character.

>>304022
Crude utilitarianism, no argument, useless invective. 59. Do better, read more, use your tutorials instead of smoking cones.

Reminder that Wittgenstein repudiated his earlier analytical leanings.

>>305514
That was just damage control. Witty loved doing philosophy, yet he destroyed it. So he backpedaled on his original ideas, but it was too late. Philosophy was already killed.
Noone gives a fuck about his later works indeed, everyone just reads Tracatus.

/sci/ here. It's cause they like to spout loads of obscurant shit and get away with it cause its 'post-modern'. Science and analytic philosophy are good, science gives you the objective *truth* about the universe, Continental shit is just subjective shit based on unproveable axioms.

At least analytics know they work for science.

File: 1447861104321.png (687KB, 1242x512px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1242x512px

>>298904

>>305701
>>305701
>science gives you the objective *truth*

Excellent bait desu

File: yurocant.jpg (55KB, 400x372px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x372px

>>305737
>engineering on Continental side

>>305756
>implying it doesn't
Let me guess 'hurrr u can't kno nuffin!'?

>>305773
you're an idiot if you think science gives objective truths

I mean there's really no point even debating you if you're too stupid to even grasp that

File: plain-egg-drop.jpg (57KB, 575x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 575x400px

>>305789
you are cutting off the branch from which you are arguing

>>305812
Do you 100% believe that science can give objective truths?
That is a truth that is from all angles nothing but.

And you 100% have faith in that?

>>305651
>Philosophy was already killed
Can we already stop this meme

There have been many philosophers who have supposedly "killed" the field.

>Hume
>Kant
>Nietzsche
>Socrates (Plato)
>Parmenides and Zeno
>bishop berkeley

>>305830
closest thing we human have to it

>>305834
So you can't take the leap of faith huh?

Sorry my question was very loaded and meant to make you think a bit harder and I hope it worked

>>305838
Science is provisional, big deal. This question gets brought up all the time by quacks and cranks in a disingenuous way. Often people use it as Trojan horse for either radical skepticism or epistemically retarded philosophies. I have enough experience with Science to operate according to the knowledge it has imparted to me. Continental crap on the other hand is political ideology and intellectual mysticism.

I don't have any interest in non-Greek philosophy.

Isn't Continental philosophy just gibberish? Derrida seemed to me to just be talking nonsense, without any value whatsoever.

File: 1447265171059.jpg (104KB, 1190x522px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1190x522px

>>305851
Are you this man? Not joking I am seriously asking because that sounds exactly like something he would say.

File: jiz man.jpg (286KB, 1940x1092px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1940x1092px

>>305863
yes

Are you this man?

>>305859
If you think Nietzsche is "gibberish", i guess

>>305872
he is a special case, readable gibberish

>>305859
>Isn't Continental philosophy just gibberish?

How about reading some instead of shitposting?

No offense, but there's so many people who like to bash continental philosophy without knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

>>305832
But there literally has been nothing since Witty, for many decades now. That's fucked up

Especially since the new atheists are now trying to get rid of philosophy because they believe questions that can't be solved empirically shouldn't be asked.

>>305870
yes.

>>305872
He is readable. But plenty of continental philosophy is absolutely meaningless. Just a bunch of jargons put together with little or no meaning.

>The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.

>In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are distributed... In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast.

>>305886
no, they just believe that people should not pretend to have the answers and then use those answers as the foundation for an ideology

>>305899
>>305883
Or... see this.

This is actually readable, but no better:

>One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method. Traditional historians and philosophers have said that these metaphors are irrelevant to the real meanings and referents of scientific concepts held by those who used them and by the public for whom they wrote. But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton's mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphyiscs the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics"?

File: a.jpg (264KB, 620x615px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 620x615px

>>305883
>implying that no one has read any and that it is not trash

>>305883
>How about reading some instead of shitposting?
Read what? Bruno Latour? Derrida?

>>305920
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger.

In that order.

>>305902
Nope, they are quite explicit about it, you should stop asking questions that cant be solved empirically. Black science man for example literally says this. And dawkins obviously.

File: lubenuts.jpg (5KB, 323x156px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 323x156px

>>305906
>Newton's rape manual
>rape manual by a man who died a virgin

>>305936
no they are just saying it is a waste of time because you will never get any answers. They are saying that people who claim to have answer to these questions are intellectually dangerous to uncritical minds and are often ideological hacks.

>>305934
Isn't Heidegger's philosophy famous for being gibberish?

>>305954
It is exceptionally hard to read yes, but it is very enlightening when you understand his terminology, but this is partly because he uses a lot of neologisms that are not very translatable.

File: 1447385418376.png (29KB, 778x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 778x458px

>>305954
>I cannot read, so books are gibberish

>>305961
I'm no expert on this, but isn't it Heidegger's philosophy the one where 100 people read it and 100 people have a different opinion on what they have read?

>>305967
Most of the times, it is true.

File: DFA.png (24KB, 778x458px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 778x458px

>>305967
>gibberish = truth

Its the tradition of analytic philosophy the reason anglos and their associated jews dominate the sciences ? I mean just compare the amount of work britain did for the human genome project compared to france,germany and all the kuks from the mainland.

>>305982
pretty much, also the reason why there are very few high tech companies comparatively from the mainland Europe

>>305948
>They are saying that people who claim to have answer to these questions are intellectually dangerous

They never say this, you're just putting words in their mouth.
Their comments are literally just
>lmao philosophy gives no answers
>stop asking questions
That's it. They never fucking talk about "ideological danger" at all, you fucking retard. Their point rests solely on empirical verification being necessary for questions to be meaningful.

Now fuck off back to samharris.com and talk about how killing babies is scientifically proven to be ethical

>>305974
>but isn't it Heidegger's philosophy the one where 100 people read it and 100 people have a different opinion on what they have read?

I've never heard of that. But then again, I read books and make up my own mind myself, so it's not impossible that's what's happened.

One of the negative aspects of reading the works of philosophers who are dead is that you can't send them an e-mail for clarification.

File: social sciences.jpg (56KB, 489x508px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 489x508px

>>305967

>>299514
philosophy just has two different types of writing styles.

chicago and MLA are plebian tier

>>305991
>you're just putting words in their mouth
you are the one doing that because you are incapable of listening to what they actually have to say.

It is intellectually dangerous to pretend you have answers to questions which can not be empirically verified and then use these 'answers' as the foundation to your system of thought. These systems of thought eventually makes claims in the empiric domain but will deny empiric truths because they clash with the ideology. Confidential philosophy has done enormous damage to Psychology and Sociology. It is truly embarrassing that in the 21st century people still believe in synthetic a priori and other spooky forms of intellectual mysticism.

File: 1443472435316.jpg (249KB, 1024x1494px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x1494px

>>298904
>Just as Plato wrote the Gorgias and Protagoras for the great sophists we should write the Nietzsche and the Wittgenstein. And for the minor sophists the Vattimo and the Rorty. Conditions (Continuum 2008) p.21

File: 1440296812694.png (36KB, 1765x532px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1765x532px

>>305981
his is what the rationalist believes.

if you care so much about empiricism, then you do not defile this doctrine like the rationalist in thinking that if some abstractions leads you to carry some experiment, then this abstractions must be relevant somehow, or even worse, true.

if you are a rationalist, you try to establish robustly the link from abstractions to empirical data. if you are really an empiricists, you already know that abstractions are masturbations stemming from some despair of the rationalist who think in terms of necessity and contingency and fears the contingency of the world.

>>306060
abstractions are not special, they are just tools. If you want to play language games go ahead, we adults have work to do.

>>298904
Hume vehemently opposes the view, held by philosophers before him (and after him), that to act morally is have a rational grasp of moral truths. He defends an instrumental conception of practical reason, according to which the role of reason is only to find out which means helps achieve a given goal. Reason (or the intellect) plays no part in determining the goals. Our goals are set exclusively by what Hume calls the passions and what today is most often called desires. Desires cannot be evaluated as true or false or as reasonable or unreasonable - they are "original existences" in our mind and arise from unknown natural causes. We cannot be criticized rationally for our desires (As Hume remarks, it is "not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" (p 416)).

Reason is the slave of the passions in the sense that practical reason alone cannot give rise to moral motivation; it is altogether dependent on pre-existing desires that furnish motivational force. For Hume, this is not a fact we should lament (as moralists do) but a basic fact about our psychology.l

>>298904
>Philosophy should side with maths and science
What does this mean? How does one discipline side with another discipline. And why are analytic fanboys so upsettingly inept at the proper use of words, isn't that supposed to be their selling point?

>>305830
1+1=2
This is pretty fucking close to objective truth

>>306262
What kind of thing is that a statement about, though?
Is it a tautology, just stating what the concepts mean, or is it an informative statement about objects?

>>306262
>math
>a science

>a tautology
>a truth

lel ok lad

>>306262
>math
>science

Idiot.

>>306262
There are many cases where human beings find it meaningful to count something as TRUE without a logical support. Terms like "gut instinct" and "flash of inspiration" appear all over our societal structures.

One of the paradoxical loops that arises with the term "empirically verifiable" is that one has to define that criterion. How does one determine that that is the true criterion? Empirical verification of course -- and the cycle continues. Either:

There has to be a root of that cycle, which is accepted without empirical verification.
You have to rely on non-standard set theories to describe the mathematical structures with which empirical verification occurs (these cycles cannot be described with a well-founded set theory)
Or you have to decide on another approach to truth.

Another thing to consider: perhaps there are other definitions of "true" and "false" which are more nuanced than those you use currently. Both are just words, four and five letters long respectively. It's the concepts behind those words that are so powerful. However, logic does not define True nor False. In fact, if you look at the fundamentals of mathematics, True and False are not constructed using predicate logic or anything like that. They are constructs that are defined implicitly by defining their behaviors with respect to operators (such as X OR False -> X)

>>306291
>>301417

One utilitarian point of view would be to declare that the version of "true" you are using can never possibly be attained via empirical evidence, because there are always questions of whether we perceive what we perceive. Such a truth becomes a mathematical oddity, creating a skeptic mindset. However, if we recognize that, we can repurpose "true" to also include things where determining their truth-ness is actually more expensive (from a utilitarian POV) than the gains which one can get from knowing the answer. Why not declare something to be true when one's value is increased by such a declaration, even if one is ontologically wrong.

This is certainly not the only definition of "truth" out there, but I provide it as a tool to kindle ideas for other meanings. For example, many religious individuals "count" something as true without any empirical evidence for it at all (or, in some cases, empirical evidence which cannot be described to the non-initiated). Thus one can say there are many many individuals who have other definitions of truth besides the one you are using, and you have the freedom to explore them all, if you so wish.

>>305701
Actual scientist here, if you don't want to look like a moron at your first seminar, you should know that the research of "truth" has mostly been left behind by actual science a long time ago. Academia is very much in majority positivist, and not realist. In other words, who cares about truth, empirical adequacy is more than enough. In fact, abandoning the search for truth has proven mostly fruitful. There is a whole field still devoted to the search for actual truth, it's called interpretations of quantum mechanics. And guess what, nobody cares about it, because all those interpretations turn out the same empirical predictions, and that makes "truth" a matter of philosophical investigation, not a scientific one.

If you really think that scientific models describe a reality and are not just tools of empirical adequacy, you're gonna have to explain to me just how you believe an operator is an actual physical entity.

>>306352
Circular logic, but at least you're aware of that. As far as "science" is concerned, I'll let Hegel speak for me: "All cats are grey by night".

File: n.jpg (42KB, 310x425px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 310x425px

>>306490
>Hegel

>>305651
>implying
PI Wittgenstein best Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein agreed, don't bother him about it.

>>298904
>Russell
Goedel.jpg

>>306060
>that picture
>plato literally BTFO

Why do people keep circlejerking Russell when all his theories got BTFO by Popper, Gödel etc?

Is it just some anglo inferiority complex?

>>306352
this and the best part is that those scientist do not even know why adequacy of predictions matters, but it does not stop them to ask for money.
the scientists are the best scammers.

File: 1441426450764.png (465KB, 1589x1122px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1589x1122px

>>306352
>Actual scientist here, if you don't want to look like a moron at your first seminar, you should know that the research of "truth" has mostly been left behind by actual science a long time ago. Academia is very much in majority positivist, and not realist.
this is false. scientist both in their syntax and vocabulary uses rationalist-realist terms. they do not think of what they are saying, nor even how they say it.

>>300471
>fedora

Not a valid argument I'm afraid