Why doesn't analytic philosophy ever address political questions

Because the closest you get is Foucault who believes politics, along with ethics, is a branch of aesthetics.

>>7233776
Foucault wasn't an analytic philosopher.

>>7233770
>analytic
>>7233776
>Foucault

"Why doesn't math ever address political questions in a substantial way?"

Why don't politicians address analytical philosophy?

>>7233833
Are you b8ing or seriously suggesting there's not much of a dofference between the relationships that math and philosophy have to the questions of political philosophy?

Why don't political theorists adress platonic number theory in a substantial way?

File: 1422633454781.jpg (40KB, 742x740px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 742x740px

>>7233770
>analytic philosophy
those guys are dilettantes logicians doing more or less informal logic.

>>7233837
Political philosophy can be addressed in an analytic way, but since good analytic philosophers should demand clear definitions and axiomatic argument, they would get fucked by rhetoric and emotional pandering.

Philosophy and philosophers have no place in politics, at least not in any kind of liberal democracy.

File: 1440602735345.jpg (36KB, 500x404px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x404px

>>7233776
Only right answer in this thread.
Analytic philosophy requires formalism and hence structuralism.

Explain why analytic philosophy doesn't take on subjectivity which is closely related to aesthetics. Pro-tip: you can't because it's not objective.

>>7234235
>Philosophy and philosophers have no place in politics, at least not in any kind of liberal democracy.

stupidest thing I've heard all day

>>7234784
In a realistic sense, not in an ideal sense, retard.

>>7233770
>analytic philosophy
http://philpapers.org/archive/sinPG

JOHN RAWLS