Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: 100836-004-7C695D6E.jpg (20KB, 410x450px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 410x450px
can someone explain to me why continental philosophy still exists? Kant's problems are analytic, Hegel's work is either outdated or has been taken up by the pittsburgh analytics, Heidegger and phenomenology have been proven wrong by countless analytic philosophers, Marx had good ideas but there's no reason to be a "Marxist" or keep them in their original form, Nietzsche/Sartre/Kierkegaard are good writers but there isn't any reason to use their frameworks to interpret the contemporary world. In the past 100 years they haven't managed to contribute anything substantial to philosophy except emphasizing that philosophy will never achieve its goals and that history and context are important. It seems to me as though analytic philosophers are the only philosophers attempting to resolve problems and ask new questions. I'm not saying that one shouldn't be knowledgable about the history of philosophy but why would one choose to enter the field of contemporary continental philosophy?
>>
Can someone explain to me why algebra still exists? I mean we have calculus now....
>>
File: Dialectic.png (436KB, 498x516px) Image search:
[Google]
436KB, 498x516px
>analytic philosophers are the only philosophers attempting to resolve problems and ask new questions
...such as?
>>
inb4 tripfag comes to complete this dumpster fire of a thread.
>>
>/lit/ is still discussing the continental/analytic divide
>>
>>9311888
I don't know, why do you made this thread? Why does anyone do anything?
>>
>>9311888
It doesn't really exist anymore. The distinction between analytic and continental has been fading. It only existed in the first place because of autistic fags like Carnap and Quine who didn't want to read big words. Analytics like Rorty, Davidson, and ironically, Putnam, the guy in your pic, are pretty open and friendly to so called "continental" thinkers and ideas.
>>
>>9311945
Rorty is the only philosopher that can be described as continental and his most important work was on the philosophy of language. Putnam and Davidson refer to continental philosophers but only to set up problems that they solve analytically. I'm not saying that there is a problem with reading continental philosophy but I just don't see why it still exists. Marx would be an economist today, Heidegger would teach classical philosophy and literature, Kierkegaard would probably do the same, and Kant+Hegel would be logicians and philosophers of mind. I just don't see the need for continentals to keep reformulating dead theorists outside of reasons for teaching the history of philosophy. Why do we need to see the world through a framework of Nietzsche or Lacan? Progress has been made since then. You don't see contemporary analytic philosophers still teaching Frege's initial logic and making a career trying to explain why his notation is still relevant.
>>
>>9311974
Does it still exist though? What big name continental philosophers are there today other than Zizek? Those speculative realist retards don't count.
>You don't see contemporary analytic philosophers still teaching Frege's initial logic and making a career trying to explain why his notation is still relevant.
Frege does still get referenced quite a bit actually. Both traditions borrow ideas from older thinkers.
>>
>>9311888
You're not wrong. Continental philosophy is only just now catching up to where analytic philosophy has been for about half a century. It's quite embarrassing
>>
>>9311974
>Marx would be an economist today
wew
>>
>>9312048
>>9312048
>What big name continental philosophers are there today other than Zizek?
no one with as much celebrity, but Sylvère Lotringer, Paul Virilio, Donna Haraway, Nick Land (still essentially Continental), Giorgio Agamben, Hélène Cixous are all names that come to mind, for me personally anyway. I'm sure there are "bigger" people I'm not recollecting at the moment.
I'm guessing you'd call some of these people "speculative realist retards"
>>
>>9312048
I'm talking about people like Badiou, Butler, Zizek, Meillassoux, Brassier and anyone who would unironically call themselves Hegelians, Heideggerians, Foucauldians,etc... And I was referring to Frege's orginial logical notation not the scope of his work
>>
>>
>>9312142
hey, there's no shame in not liking "continental" philosophers. If the analytic tradition is your thing, go for it dude.
The kind of dick waving, "who's right, the analytics or the continentals" is super uninteresting.
>>
>>9311888
You're a pleb who was indoctrinated by the head canon fabricated by Bertrand Russell.
There was never continental vs. analytic. There are several traditions since ancient Greece that have permeated throughout philosophy.
>>
>>9312116
Sloterdijk has as much celebrity on the continent itself, if not more.
>>
>>9311974
>Why do we need to see the world through a framework of Nietzsche or Lacan?
Because using simply logic to perceive the world through tells you nothing about WHY things are the way they are now, and HOW to act in the future.
Psychology and sociology are emergent systems whose individual constituents through thousands of years of human evolution are so far removed from logic that it makes no sense to look through them with an analytical framework.
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3