Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: HisSmile.png (151KB, 328x392px) Image search:
[Google]
151KB, 328x392px
I'd genuinely like to get into analytic philosophy but its whole approach seems fucking retarded to me. Anyone familiar with the history of philosophy should be aware of the historical and social situatedness that influence philosophical inquiry, yet analytics seem to live in the illusion that philosophical positions can be neutrally examined and judged by the standards of formal logic. Similarly, they redefine the field of philosophy to suit their own interests, leading to the bizzare proclamations that Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and other "continental" giants aren't actually doing philosophy since they're not commited to analysing concepts in a way reconcilable with anglo thought. This leads to even more radical specialization of academia, since if your interests lie in wide-ranging intellectual developments you can't be an analytic philosopher. Of course, interpretations of Aristotle have been accepted as valid analytic philosophy even though his thought is hardly compatible with their approach, while any thinker that stinks of Hegelianism is just writing poetry or something.
So, the main point of analytic philosophy appears to be rigorous defining of various positions that arise on a
philosophical question - usually revolving around language, with anything going beyond those limits dismissed as nonsense.
>>
>>9095122
>muh identity thinking, empty husks, and tautologies
Get a life, idiot
>>
Well you're right, OP, and the childhood and life of analytic philosophers would be a wonderful field for psychoanalytic research. Why do these guys hate anything that has a meaning ? Hell, I even wonder if they're able to enjoy a nice diner at some restaurant.
There's been several books with that kind of approach : philosophers and their mother, the sexual life of philosophers, critique of gastronomic reason, etc. But it's always been focused on "classic" authors, whereas it could be useful too to understand the reasons of the analytic dead-end in modern philosophy.
>>
analytic philosophy, much like libertarianism, is essentially just a consequence of autism
if you're a neurotypical, I'm afraid this path is blocked for you
>>
They just want to make themselves look more STEMish because humanities are such a cesspool, I dont really blame them, but yeah they are fags
>>
>>9095163
Can I fake it if I practice a lot of logic though? Unfortunately I couldn't make it into a continental department.
>>
>>9095122
It is retarded. It's for failed mathematicians who are also pseuds. They're too stupid to read more challenging continental thinkers, who are some of the greatest minds that humanity has ever produced.
>>
>ITT all the assblasted fags mad that Witty exposed and killed their obfuscatory pseudoscience
>>
>>9095218
This tbqhwyf.
>>
>>9095218
>>pseudoscience
this has to be bait
>>
>>9095218
>not realizing that late (smart) Wittgenstein renounced his autistic analytical ways
>>
>>9095173
This cannot be a serious post
>>
Is it just me or are there a lot more analytic shitposts lately?
>>
>>9098546
Well, due to a certain group of individuals assocating lots of continental philosophy's 20th century starts with a certain conspiration theory that revolves around a certain cultural infiltration influenced by another continental philosopher created a politization (or rather, exposed certain subtones no one really wanted to bring up before) of analytical philosophy.
>>
>>9095122
i study german idealism, but i've also a math degree. i love analytic philosophy, but hegel is my favorite philosopher (next to Kierkegaard). it's not an either/or man (c what i did there), i think both have a lot to offer. i mean, if it's the rigor you disdain, Spinoza could probably be argued as having started that. Either him or Descartes. Obviously our rigor looks different today, but that's only because we now have access to different tools (specifically quantifiers). I'm not too familiar with the entirety of either's canon, but a lot of analytic phil I've read has made references to history. it's impossible to talk a priori or analytic/synthetic distinction without kant; frege discussed the history behind his thoughts a bit. acquaint yourself with both. if you want recs, frege is the best place to start, then read russell, then read witty. the ol trio. toss in some carnap and g.e. moore in there and you're off. then, try yourself to see how it either clashes or blends with continental philosophy. see if you can see the development
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1