/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6665721]

Analytic vs continental

To which do you identify most

Pic related

[Anonymous No.6665727]

Hegel sounds like a delusional nubjob, and even though Wittgenstein makes no sense I can tell that it could make sense if I was smart enough, so Analytic.

[Anonymous No.6665732]

>this is the face of continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.6665745]

>>6665732
>charming grizzly beard
>wild hair denoting freedom of expression
>can drive a boat
>casual yet classy clothes

Meanwhile, at the analytic department, everyone looks like autists in poorly cut suits masturbating to Tractatus

[The cats No.6665746]

just further proof philosophags are cancer and we need a /phil/

[Anonymous No.6665750]

>>6665721
/lit/ - literature

[Anonymous No.6665762]

From what little i know, analitycal seems more phylosophical and continental more interesting overall.
Like, continental has a heterodoxous aproach with things like estructural linguistics por marxism, while the other one has a more traditional aproach

[Anonymous No.6665771]

>>6665732
He's had 4+ wives that look like this, jelly?

[Anonymous No.6665773]

>>6665771
no, she is ugly.

[Anonymous No.6665774]

analytic is complete horseshit

continental is mostly crap but way better than analytic, at least is has some kind of purpose

[Anonymous No.6665778]

>>6665745
Have you been in an analytic department lately? No one gives a shit about Wittgenstein, save for the actual Wittgenstein scholars that are peppered across the universities.

[Anonymous No.6665781]

>>6665778

Everyone still look like what autists think "classy" means

[Anonymous No.6665785]

dumb thread tbh

[Anonymous No.6665786]

>>6665781
Classy indeed

[Anonymous No.6665787]

>>6665762
And i forgot the question. I dont like philosophy that much, so i prefer continental

[Anonymous No.6665788]

We need /phil/ and /rel/

[Anonymous No.6665789]

>>6665781
>I don't like how they dress, therefore they are shit!

Ok.

[Anonymous No.6665791]

>>6665788
We also need /hist/

[Anonymous No.6665793]

to me whats most important is who dresses the best and who gets laid a lot, so whichever that is, that one, even if their philosophy doesnt make any sense and/or is useless.

[Anonymous No.6665795]

>>6665786
Only thing lacking there is the finger gloves and fedoras

[Anonymous No.6665797]

>>6665788
If we make /phil/ we're going to have people complaining about how we need /anal/ and /cont/, and who knows what will happen then

[Anonymous No.6665799]

>>6665721
continental, but i'd rather just merge both together,.

[Anonymous No.6665859]

>>6665797
>/anal/

[Anonymous No.6665903]

>>6665859
I'd do anal with hermoine if u kn iwhat I mean ;)

[Anonymous No.6665920]

>>6665727
>Hegel sounds like a delusional nubjob
How?

[Anonymous No.6665947]

>>6665788
we also need /psy/

[Anonymous No.6665955]

>>6665727
>I'm not smart enough to understand any philosophy so analytic

yup that sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.6665976]

>>6665947
there's already /x/ m8

[Anonymous No.6666148]

Anyone who picks a side is trash and might as well quit wasting oxygen.

[Anonymous No.6666158]

>>6665721
god, she's so sexy

[Anonymous No.6666163]

>>6665727
So you didn't understand continental or analytic philosophy, so you chose analytic...?

[Anonymous No.6666222]

it's just a cultural difference in schools, like judo and karate, or electrical physics and engineering physics

if anything you can say the difference is purely linguistic and how it shapes cultural worldviews, i remember seeing some article around the web about how the mental approaches in the german and english language may have been a reason for the divide

both get the job done, just different approaches

[Anonymous No.6666224]

>>6665788
We need /boipussy/

[SYK FUK RUKUS No.6666250]

First of all I'd like to ask: where do you think the distinction between analytics and continentals begin? I've so far encountered 3 ways of people approaching the problem:

>1. Traditional distinction that states that clear divergence occurs in the beginning of 20th century with emergence of phenomenology in Germany, appropriation of psychology into philosophy, formation of Frankfurt school and Heidegger on one hand for continentals and on the other hand for analytics formation of Vienna Circle and Frege-Russell-Wittgenstein trio collective works.

>2. Distinction championed by many analytics that believe the split origins in 19th century Germany with mid to late German Idealism, Hegel and Nietzsche which they more often than not, despise.

>3. Third distinction I've seen people making is the rarest one. It is kind of a perennial philosophy asserting that analytic versus continental dichotomy is just a modern manifestation of long struggle between Aristotelian and Platonist currents represented before in rationalism and empiricism.

Also with which school would you associate more closely Kierkegaard? On one hand he's a Christian existentialist, but on the other his use of logic and critique of Hegel shows some kind of analytic strain.

[Anonymous No.6666313]

bump in this bitch

[Anonymous No.6666321]

>>6665721
I've got a better question

How the fuck is that pic related

[Anonymous No.6667080]

>>6666222
>the mental approaches in the german and english language may have been a reason for the divide

Weird because analytic phil began in Germany with guys like Brentano, Frege, and Carnap.

[Anonymous No.6667162]

>>6666321
My guess is that he is refering to feminism

[Anonymous No.6667976]

>>6665721
analytic. logic and language or bust. continental philosophy went to shit when hegel misread kant (so at its beginning).

[Anonymous No.6667984]

Continental. It's where the fun's at. That is, if we must submit ourselves to this idiotic dychotomy.

[Anonymous No.6667986]

>>6666222
Fuck off.... Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Popper - all German-speaking people. A lot of analytic philosophers also consider Kant to be of great importance for conetxtualizing the relationship between concepts and reality.

There's only one right way. Don't be a fuckin' relativist. You sound really fuckin' dumb.

[Anonymous No.6667991]

>>6667984
Fun? It's about being right, fuck fun

[Anonymous No.6667992]

>>6667984
It's where desultory babble is. Nonsense, piffle. If that's fun for you, disembowel yourself.

[Anonymous No.6667994]

>>6667991
Aye, my nigga.

[Anonymous No.6667995]

>>6665721
science

[Anonymous No.6667999]

>>6665920
He took concretism to a fuckin' extreme.

[Anonymous No.6668001]

Analytic of course.

Fiction is for muh feels, not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6668003]

>>6665799
What.

[Anonymous No.6668008]

>>6665774
lol

[Anonymous No.6668011]

>>6667984
Check your spelling. Triggered....

[Anonymous No.6668021]

>>6665721
slight amount of peach fuzz under nose
3/10. Would bang if desperate

[Anonymous No.6668025]

>>6668011
Spelling of what

[Anonymous No.6668027]

>>6666222
Also: Leibniz. German is pretty mechanical in form, by the way.

[Anonymous No.6668030]

>>6668025
'dichotomy*'

[Anonymous No.6668037]

>>6668030
Shit, you're right. Too much Greek lately.

[Anonymous No.6668044]

>>6668037
Greek must be hard. Best of luck - assuming you aren't already proficient. Otherwise, my compliments.

[G 0 D B L 3 ß !zR/LhJxu0Q No.6668054]

>>6667080
This is true, but it was greatly pioneered through the Anglosphere.
>>6666250
The third and second options merge to be more or less the truth, imo. There's a clear ideological divide in the Philosophy of Mind for these two sects - although this is itself merging together to one general consensus as a dialectic (al a >>6665799). And Kierkegaard is certainly Continental over Analytic. Any critique he made to Hegel was over his attempt to make an actual science of philosophy (and his issues with dialectics).
He's a strong influence to Heidegger for a reason.

[Anonymous No.6668070]

>>6668001
>implying the analytic isn't the same as the continental but playing the whole "I'm an academic therefore I'm important" little bourgoise game
He's a good goy.

[Anonymous No.6668217]

>A certain gesture of manliness, be it one’s own, be it that of another, deserves mistrust. It expresses independence, surety of the power of command, the silent conspiracy of all men with each other. The archetype for this is the good looking man in a smoking jacket, who enters his bachelor’s pad alone one late evening, turns on the indirect lighting, and pours a whisky-soda: the carefully recorded fizzing of the mineral water says what the arrogant mouth does not; that he despises whatever does not smell of smoke, leather and shaving cream – above all, women, and for that very reason they swarm all over him. For him, the pinnacle of human relations is the club, the site of a respect founded on a considerate inconsiderateness. The joys of such men, or on the contrary of their models, which hardly anyone alive really matches, for human beings are always better than their culture, have altogether something of the latent act of violence. By all appearances, this is threatened to others, though he has long since had no need to do so, sprawled on his easy chair. In truth it is past violence against himself. If all pleasure sublates earlier displeasure, then here displeasure is raised – as pride in bearing it – unmediated, untransformed, stereotypically into pleasure: unlike wine, every glass of whiskey, every puff on the cigar still recalls the reluctance, which it must have cost the organism, to accustom itself to such powerful stimuli. According to their own constitution, the he-men would thus be what they are usually presented as in film scripts, masochists. The lie is concealed in their sadism, and it is as liars that they truly become sadists, agents of repression. That lie is nothing other than repressed homosexuality, which emerges as the only approved form of what is heterosexual. In Oxford one can differentiate between two kinds of students: the “tough guys” and the intellectuals; the latter are equated almost without further ado to those who are effeminate. There is a great deal of evidence that the ruling class polarizes itself according to these extremes on the road to dictatorship. Such disintegration is the secret of integration, of happiness of unity in the absence of happiness. In the end the “tough guys” [in English in original] are the ones who are really effeminate, who require the weaklings as their victims, in order not to admit that they are like them. Totality and homosexuality belong together. While the subject falls apart, it negates everything which is not of its own kind. The opposites of the strong man and the compliant youth fuse into a social order, which unreservedly asserts the masculine principle of domination. By making everyone, without exception – even presumed subjects – into its objects, it recoils into total passivity, virtually into what is feminine.

Continental is trash. Just look at his passage from Adorno. He comes across like a Fedora here. How people can defend this is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.6668636]

>>6667999
>>6667986
>fuckin'
fu'k o'v

[Anonymous No.6668640]

>>6665721
Dated dichotomy tbh. If you don't take aspects from both you're a pleb.

[Anonymous No.6669289]

>>6668640
how. and it is certainly not dated.

[Anonymous No.6669304]

>hmmm it sure is hard reading all these old philosophers if only I could dismiss them all so I didn't have to pretend like I understand them or even enter a debate with someone who does? can II use numbers to do it?

[Anonymous No.6669990]

>>6669289
There's no good reason to divide philosophy into two 'rival' schools. It's literally console wars university edition.

[Anonymous No.6670409]

>>6669990
there are some obvious differences in how philosophy is done today that might be contextualized as analytic/continental.

[Anonymous No.6671994]

>>6670409
It might, but I think that is ultimately more detrimental than anything else.

[Anonymous No.6672005]

>>6668070
For Jew.

[Anonymous No.6672462]

>>6671994
detrimental to what and so what?

[Anonymous No.6673703]

>>6665721
Positivism is trash. If there's an alternative to Analytic, I'll take it.

[Anonymous No.6673722]

>>6667976
How about that time you misread Hegel you absolute madman?

[Anonymous No.6673735]

can someone give a brief explanation of the two

[Anonymous No.6674183]

>>6672462
>detrimental to what
To philosophical discourse.

> and so what?
Makes philosophy more stagnant and boring, which I don't like.

[Anonymous No.6674198]

>>6673735
Continental philosophy is poetical nonsense that tries to hide behind bombastic language in an attempt to be taken seriously and analytic philosophy is dry nonsense that tries to hide behind scientific language in an attempt to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.6674385]

>>6674198
thank you.

[Anonymous No.6674412]

>>6674198
On a more optimistic look, continental philosophy seeks to relativize and deconstruct concepts in a skeptical manner to tear them from their pedestals, presumably to make room for new, better meaning; whereas analytic philosophy seeks extant meaning and truth through logic, empiricism and experimentation.

Both are flawed. Continentals like to mix their politics in with their work and get very wrapped up in the destruction of meaning and skepticism that dialog becomes extremely difficult. Analytics worship empiricism and falsifiability to a fault and in my experience tend to shy away from ambiguity since they don't particularly like it, not having the tools to properly analyze it.

[Anonymous No.6674425]

>>6674412
thank you too, that is a somewhat more unbiased approach to the explanation

[Anonymous No.6674601]

>>6674425
Essentially, as a rule, continentals believe meaning must be made and all extant values in the world were created by man, often arbitrarily (some post-structuralists argue that ALL meaning is arbitrary, but they're retarded). Analytics believe meaning must be sought and the only meaningful things are things demonstrated through the scientific method or (formal) logic.

Continentals are generally too abstract and navel-gazey, whereas analytics are annoying faggots about concrete phenomena and are extremely positivistic.