*dismantles your analytic-synthetic distinction* *naturalizes

>>9704378

bruh, im just now getting through guyer wood's introduction to the first critique. let me get back to you on this one is like 3 months.

>>9704378
more people need to read Quine, he is the culmination and the summum bonum of the traditions of scientific naturalism and logical empiricism
way more thoughtful and compelling and even writerly than any other so-called analytic philosophers then or since

>>9704378
>*dismantles your analytic-synthetic distinction*

People don't realize what a good thing this is. The STEM-Humanities divide is just a meme and its destruction is all thanks to Quine.

>>9704420
>People don't realize what a good thing this is. The STEM-Humanities divide is just a meme and its destruction is all thanks to Quine.

Quine's criticism also revived contemporary metaphysics. We can actually hold a dream about spending our life writing super-specialist discussions about ontology again. What is better in life?

Everything "important" that Quine did was done more persuasively by post-Kantian philosophers in the 19th century. The only reason analytic philosophy gets any flack is because it was severely hampered by the "contributions" of Quine, and then attacked while it was down by Kripke. Analytic philosophy is only just now recovering from the swill we were served by these two losers.

>>9704448
>Quine's criticism also revived contemporary metaphysics.
Contemporary analytic metaphysics is a neo-scholastic monstrosity that Quine would have no truck with. He devised a scientifically respectable way to talk about what is based on his deflationary theory of ontological commitment and his logical regimentation of language. He did not intend to let loose the gates to the clusterfuck that is contemporary analytic metaphysics. He totally rejected speculative metaphysics in particular and transcendental philosophy in general.

>>9704465
Once you admit to the existence of abstract entities, there's no closing Pandora's box

>>9704479
True, but irrelevant to my post. He still minimized abstract entities in his ontology. His own
>deflationary theory of ontological commitment and his logical regimentation of language
forced him to accept the existence of classes for lack of some non-abstract explication of mathematics and its indispensability scientific theory. That's just called being intellectually honest

>>9704465
Nobody cares, Quine's stereotypically anglo anti-metaphysics stance is retarded and outdated. Applying scientific methodology to philosophy doesn't work and won't "solve" philosophical puzzles, because they're not isolated puzzles in the first place. The sooner this kind of smug empiricism dies out, the better. I'm thankful to Quine for creating a space for renewed metaphysics, even if he didn't intend it.

>>9704465
Quine's theory of ontological commitment was just to have a very conservative ontology, which ironically led him to rule out possibilia, which led him to tacitly deny that anything was possible.

In other words, he should have done some of that "scholastic metaphysics" instead of being an ignoramus.

Can someone explain Quine's ontology to me? Please?

>>9705474
reluctant platonism

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (90KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1920x1080px

>>9705474

File: 1498980357148.jpg (507KB, 1000x1209px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1000x1209px

>>9705474
to be is to be the value of a bound variable
>hm ok. but where?
in a scientific theory
>but which one?
your favorite one
>gee thanks
>yfw

>>9704498

Wasn't he a naturalist? Hence, his metaphysical commitments were purely scientific in nature?

>>9704378
>dismanles your analytic-synthetic distinction
Explain further.

>>9704378
>dismanles your analytic-synthetic distinction
Explain further.