Ok so, is analytic philosophy all pseudo-mathematical garbage,

Yes.

All analytic philosophers would do well to go back and review Aristotle. Just because a permavirgin claims something is logically consistent does not make it true or (worse) a meaningful analogy.

Now it just more generally means in a methodological sense ordinary language vocabulary and autistically narrow articles of inquiry in an article or book.

Though, I unironically think they have put out the most interesting works on metaphysics and aesthetics in the 21st century so far.

>>9886595

I should screenshot this post and put it on /r/badphilosophy.

I'm not even an analytic, but any first year logic courses (either a critical reasoning or formal logic) in a philosophy department will teach you the difference between logical consistency, truth, and analogy (among many other topics). Pretty sure this is something any philosophy major, who isn't a dumbass, isn't going to mess up by inferring from or conflating these, and says more about your own misconceptions and status signalling about philosophy than anything.

>>9886595
This, only women and non-white people can make logical statements as their authority is one of objective experience

File: costanzabuster.jpg (9KB, 191x263px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 191x263px

>>9886608
Yes, go back to your containment site. Please and thank you.

>>9886569

>pseudo-mathematical garbage
>overthrow a few thousand years of logic via frege
>basically create type theory via russell
>basically create model theory via tarski
>both church and godel publish seminal math papers in the philosophy journal analysis mid century
>make contributions to probability via suppes, jeffrey, and others
>make contributions to information theory via dretske
>make contributions to game theory via skyrms and lewis
>make contributions to non-classical systems via booloos, kripke, priest, and many others
>make contributions to computer science, machine learning, and probabilistic models of causality via pollock, pearl, and glymour
>make contributions to category theory and basically create homotopy type theory via awodey

thats off the top of my head

wonder how many will be buttblasted by this list

>>9886606
What makes you think that about their work on metaphysics and aesthetics? Any philosophers in particular or certain articles of note?

>>9886643
Well since you mix in some notable people with some fairly whos I'm sure plenty of people will find something to take issue with. Should use some first and last names there buddy.