>lol a girl could beat you up brah does this refute nietzsche's

Are analytics really as bad as they seem?

>>8802380
Pretty fucking bad. Read Collingwood's Autobiography, the part about his time as a teacher of philosophy at Oxford and his experience of the British philosophical milieu that was giving birth to Russell's analytic philosophy among Anglos. It's telling that Collingwood, one of the only good Anglo readers of German philosophy at the time, basically does not interact at all with the nascent analytic tradition. Because it had nothing to do with it, despite thinking it had surmounted it.

They're basically a bunch of pedantic cunts eager to dismiss prior philosophy that they barely read, and jerk each other off over it. When logic comes along, they jump on logicism like a bandwagon. When positivism and dogmatic empiricism come along, they jump on them like bandwagons.

The Anglo-Analytic "style" right from these beginnings up until quite recently was to have a monolithic, preconceived, and disastrously unreflective epistemology (formal logic), hold other philosophical systems up to it just long enough to show that they don't fit into the arbitrary rules, and then take pleasure in shitting on them for it. Fair claims of French and German obscurantism just emboldened Anglos in being cunts, and made them dig in their heels.

>>8802380
what do they even seem like

i don't know what /lit/ thinks about analytics so i can't answer

>>8802710
Sometimes there's interest, but it's mostly dislike to outright hatred. I've found it really hard to find an analytical philosopher that isn't in some way cancerous or poisonous, whether it be misinterpreting Wittgenstein, that whole p-Zombie shit (or any other sci fi esque crap), claiming all other philosophers are continentals and then claiming all continentals are obscurantists and so on. Weirdly the least cancerous so far is DFW.

>>8802379
also bertrand russell was a literal cuck, lest we forget

>>8802380
Yes. It's like Platonism and epistemology to the nth degree.

What's worse is they presume you know nothing about analytics if one dares criticize it.

These hacks will go down in history as the 20th/21st century Descartes.

>>8802755
>I've found it really hard to find an analytical philosopher that isn't in some way cancerous or poisonous

Witty is great.

>>8803579
The analytic interpretation of Witty is not so great.

>>8803579
Witty is a philosopher of language, analytics is at least in my interpretation a branching-off of language philosophy that replaces language with symbolic logic and precise language.

It's cancer.

>>8803581
Wittgenstein was borderline retarded and tried to teach some Austrian school children University level Math and then sperged out when they couldn't understand him.

Noam Chomsky is all you'll ever need to know about analytic philosophy. Others are either dead of insignificant.

>>8802409
ordinary language philosophy wasn't like that doe

>>8803593
Wrong. Witty had teaching figured out.

>>8803631
this must be bait

>>8802379
totally. congrats anon you must be a genius

plz save us all from ressentiment, only you can do it

almost every post in this thread is absolutely horrible

>>8804405
congratulations
>>8804434
which are the exceptions?

>>8804468


>>8803737
>>8804434

>>8802380
Worse.

>>8802379
Why I am not a Russell fan.

Russell's vices were as numerous as his escapades in marriage, pussy so good he'd promote pacifism just to get at it. I shall endeavour to avoid either extreme. Note I am writing in 2016.