Will reading analytic philosophy make me a better writer?

Probably not, as analytic philosophers are mostly bad writers. It will make you a better thinker.

>>9971137
No, most analytic philosophy is written 'badly' from the viewpoint of a person who's looking for something like literature.

>>9971137
No, it may even make you worse

>>9971149
>It will make you a better thinker.

Dubious

>>9971137
yes, and a better speaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI

It makes you attractive though

>>9971326
literal autism. literally though

>>9971319
>>9971314
>>9971149
won't the exploration of concepts give you more ideas to work with for you writing?

>>9971367
I say, read analytic philosophy if you enjoy it. You don't have to worry about it making you a better writer

>>9971382
I basically only care about improving my writing, but I was just considering taking some phil classes

>>9971367
No, because philosophy is only concerned with a small subset of all potentially interesting literary topics. You're better off reading general non-fiction, especially biographies, if you want plunder existing texts for future stories.

>>9971367
Have you read any analytic philosophy?
There's nothing applicable, its all just autistic nit picking at the most banal common sense shit

I feel bad for Kripke. He's incredibly autistic and brilliant, so he's great at building castles out of whatever materials you give him, but someone gave him the completely awful material of analytic philosophy.

He's spent a lifetime analyzing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin within the analytic framework he's been assigned, but he has never once stepped back and thought about the foundations of the inquiry. If he had done so, even once in his long career, he would have realized they are completely bunk. He's preaching to a choir of bungling Englishmen.

One underachieving stoner with a tattered copy of Heidegger, some perseverance, and an IQ of 110, is literally smarter than Saul Kripke, Autistic Doyen of Analytic Philosophy, with an IQ of 257. Imagine what Kripke could have done as an historian, or a chemist, or something else with an empirical metier as its first foundation. Instead, he has essentially been solving Rubik's Cubes for his entire life. They just keep building him a bigger cube every time he finishes one, on the same design premises. Little does he know, it's a complete waste of time.

>>9971394
Then I suggest you do like me, like >>9971396 says. Though I personally don't read biographies. I do like searching google scholar for interesting stuff.

>>9971396
>>9971399
>>9971410
hmm ok, maybe I won't waste the time. I assumed analytic phil would explore a lot of interesting philosophical concepts like mind and consciousness that would be applicable

>>9971137
>Will reading analytic philosophy make me a better writer?
no, but continental philosophy will.

>>9971405
>continental burnouts actually believe this

I'm laughing

File: when you experience pure ideology.jpg (172KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 440x440px

>>9971405
>how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
>mfw everytime a pseud repeats this

>>9971149
>bad writer
nice spook

File: harold-bloom1.jpg (240KB, 1014x986px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1014x986px

>>9971575
>nice spook

>>9971405
he's not brilliant at all

File: 1485556215011.jpg (8KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x256px

>>9971405
>continental faggots still trying to prove analytic phil is bad

every time

>>9971645
>faggots
Spooked
>Anal Philosophy
Spooked

>>9971558
>>9971572
>>9971645
0 arguments

File: playing with trains.png (687KB, 1242x512px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1242x512px

>>9971645
The good thing about Continental Philosophy is that we don't have to prove shit, all we need to do is say it and people will see the truth for themselves

>>9971649
>>9971654
>>9971659
>le contrarianism

simply epic friend. go read heidegger in a corner while the read philosophers debate little buddy

>>9971666
>real philosophers
dawww, is little buddy sad that his 4 years of university were flushed down the toilet so that he could learn about pseudo-mathematics? reminder that real mathematicians, scientists and logicians cringe whenever they see analytic "philosophers" try and fail miserably to talk about these subjects.

>>9971697
>reminder that real mathematicians, scientists and logicians cringe whenever they see analytic "philosophers" try and fail miserably to talk about these subjects.

[citation needed]

>>9971740
>[citation needed]
I vouch for him, anon, he's right.

There is no analytic-continental divide you fucking reddit pseuds

>>9971697
>separating analytic philosophers from logicians

>>9971137
no but being an autistic jew might

>>9971697
>who is godel, einstein, john bell, niels bohr, frege, cantor, wheeler, newton, mach, reichenbach, etc. etc

if contemporary "new atheists" constitute your notion of "real scientists" then there is no helping you.

>>9971697
Wrong, pretty much every mathematician who is interested in logic and works in that area is interested in philosophy of mathematics.
t. mathematician

>>9971874
Different guy. What have you found interesting from that?

>>9971884
From philosophy of math? I'm mainly interested in foundational matters regarding logic and math. Most of the literature is technical and not philosophical (but contrary to a lot of other math textbooks, mathematical logic texts often have philosophical and historical digressions, this is telling), but taking a step back and looking critically at the theories being built is incredibly helpful for many different reasons.

>>9971935
Nah I mean like, what ideas in particular have you found interesting from Phil of Math?

>>9971950
Recently I've been reading Graham Priest's "Beyond the limits of thought" which is a defense of dialetheism. That's pretty interesting.

god damn you're all retarded illiterates