/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7132106]

Which do you prefer, analytic or continental philosophy?

[Anonymous No.7132109]

>>7132106
whatever one is neetchay

[Anonymous No.7132111]

Continental for fun, analytic for serious stuff

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.7132129]

I prefer to read continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7132132]

Analytics are responsible for turning philosophy into a joke degree so continental

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.7132137]

>>7132132
>Russell fanboys start posting
>Schmetterling starts posting
>Mein Antlitz dabei

[Anonymous No.7132138]

Anyone is capable of bad philosophy, regardless of conversation style or the specific 'problems' one is concerned with.

[Anonymous No.7132146]

>>7132106
Continental is for boys, analytic is for men

[Anonymous No.7132153]

Analytic philosophy hasn't produced anything of note the last 20 years, and has devolved into semiotics and philosophy of science.

So Continental.

[Anonymous No.7132155]

Only idiots think there's a divide

[Anonymous No.7132164]

>>7132153
See >>7132146
You're just mad because it requires login and doesn't let you spout bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7132165]

>>7132146
hahahaha dips bedoraa!! :DDDDDDD

[Anonymous No.7132168]

>>7132106
Can't have one without the other

[Anonymous No.7132169]

>>7132164
logic*

[Anonymous No.7132178]

>>7132155
I party agree with you. I'm pro analytic, but sometimes i think that the difference is only in writing style. If you asked me what is the difference between those two, i'm not sure i would be able to give a precise answer.

[Anonymous No.7132185]

>>7132153
Much more work in a wide variety of areas of "Analytic" ("Anglo-American") philosophy has been produced over the past couple decades than at any other point in time since Frege.

[Anonymous No.7132188]

>>7132146
It does have a sense of seriousness, while continental looks like fucking gibberish, at least most of the time.

[Anonymous No.7132190]

I slightly prefer analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.7132192]

>>7132178
The terms are products of British sophistry.
But I am in favor of the categorization of "analytic" philosophy.
This way we can instantly single out those who have read the literature of Bertrand Russell and found any thing profound within his scribblings.

[Anonymous No.7132195]

>>7132192
Russell isn't "profound", though he's done some important work.

[Anonymous No.7132199]

Fiction

[Anonymous No.7132200]

If you want a "profound" analytic philosopher, there's always Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.7132202]

>>7132195
What important work has he done?

[Anonymous No.7132204]

>>7132202
Logic and matehmatics

[Anonymous No.7132208]

>>7132199
Poetry, actually. Poetry>>>>>>>>>>any continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.7132210]

But let us be a bit more specific, let's talk about meta-ethics, that's analytic work 100%. I don't think that anybody can just say that meta-ethics is bunch of crap.

[Anonymous No.7132216]

>>7132106
Scholastic.

[Anonymous No.7132228]

>>7132216
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7132229]

>>7132204
You mean logical atomism?
His mathematical writings are not particularly groundbreaking,
nor are they, contrary to what he may have believed, in any way related to philosophy.
Logical atomism is not sound, either,
it requires expounded axioms,
which Russell did not manage to justify.
His apology amounted to "Well, at least its not obfuscation".

Its anti-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.7132232]

>>7132216
But that looks more like what we call today analytic philosophy. Just look at Thomas Aquinas and Ocham.

[Anonymous No.7132239]

>>7132229
>axioms
>justify

you what m8?

[Anonymous No.7132250]

Continental is for cucks.

[Anonymous No.7132258]

Analytic, by far.

[Anonymous No.7132261]

>>7132239
Well, it is non sequitur,
but that is precisely what I am saying:
logical atomism presupposes axioms which have never actually been justified,
the supposed "justification" being that it is at least superiour to other german texts which the author claims to be gibberish, when in fact the author may not have properly initiated themselves in the older traditions.

It appears as spurious sophistry to me and I would rather stick with mainland traditions, considering Russell never actually provided an alternative to what he was ciriticising, nor did he replace it with any thing even halfway adequate,
just British faculties in which banalities are reiterated to misinformed students like a deli girl selling beef sandwiches.

[No True Scottist No.7132310]

>>7132153

Just from my own academic career I can tell you that if anything Analytic Metaphysics is flourishing more than ever. Analytic Philosophers don't have the logical positivist prejudices they used to have and are doing some really strong substantial work all over the place.

Anyways my go to stuff is Scholasticism and Ancient Philosophy, but I am trained in analytic Philosophy due to my schooling. Considering that the peak of logical development before Frege and Russell was later medieval Scholasticism there is a certain likeness between the two schools. I really do enjoy reading Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt and other continentals though. It is good to have a nice balance.

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.7132321]

>>7132310
I don't get it.
I don't understand how you can take Bertrand Russell seriously.
Am I in a vacuum here?
Am I the only one who has actually read what he wrote?

[Anonymous No.7132325]

>>7132229

I believe he was referring to Russell's paradox, which forced a reevaluation of what is now called, thanks to Russel, naive set theory. Russel was also instrumental in the early formalization of predicate logic, and, despite its flaws, the Principia Mathematica was a makor achievement in the history of thought.

[Anonymous No.7132327]

>>7132106
continental actually helps us understand our experience in the world
analytic is just >muh definitions circlejerking

[Anonymous No.7132337]

>>7132261
You're either high right now or I hate you.

[Anonymous No.7132344]

>>7132325
I don't think that is true and there is no reason to suggest that is.
>a major achievement in the history of thought
What does this even mean?
It either has a use or it doesn't.
This idea that it "built up" to something else is spurious,
considering you could never know that to be true.
If he had written something worthwhile himself,
then maybe talk and cite,
but the fact is not only did he not,
but he criticised philosophers that were superiour to him and as a result the philosophy departments of the British Isles are a joke.

[Anonymous No.7132345]

>>7132164

[Anonymous No.7132355]

>>7132337
Either come up with a counter argument or don't post.

[Anonymous No.7132377]

analytics have remained silence in the face of the injustices of imperialism, racism, sexism and capitalism. they are just a bunch of rich guys perpetuating oppression

[Anonymous No.7132400]

>>7132344

>I don't think that's true

Well, it is. I refer you to any encyclopedia entry on him.

There is a clear line through the Principia and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Gödek gives personal testament to this fact. Knowledge is attained through accretion, not grand flashes of insight. That Russell was 'wrong'about some things does not lessen his real achievements.

[Anonymous No.7132424]

>>7132400
>There is a clear line through the Principia and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Gödek gives personal testament to this fact. Knowledge is attained through accretion, not grand flashes of insight. That Russell was 'wrong'about some things does not lessen his real achievements.

I don't know why you are saying this,
nor do I know of any thing by him that could be counted as an achievement in any meaningful way.
The main thing I have become aware of is the extremely bad quality of his prose, "acquisition of knowledge through accretion", if you want me to use a change of jargon, I see no reason to, but pedants will be pedants, and his being a catalyst for degeneracy within the philosophical faculties of the universities of the British isles.

It's sophistry to me. You have provided me with the University line. The Faculty line.
Of course the faculty will say this, they are Russell fanboys.
It's sophistry to me.

[Anonymous No.7132453]

>>7132424

You're just repeating your libelous nothings, staying nothing of substance and demonstrating zero understanding of Russell's work out biography. I'll leave you to it.

[Anonymous No.7132474]

>>7132111
>analytic for serious stuff
philpapers.org/archive/SINPG

SERIOUS STUFF
MODAL REALISM

[Anonymous No.7132487]

>>7132453
There's nothing to understand.

[Anonymous No.7132596]

the only people who read continentals post-Heidegger are people who care about positively worthless subjects like ethics, queer theory, and the human condition. Who gives a fuck? Real philosophy is logic and metaphysics and it seems the only people who hate it are those who can't handle 2+2

[No True Scottist No.7132663]

>>7132321

>Russell is the only person in analytic Philosophy
> "Analytic Philosophy" is a label based around content, and not form.

'Analytic" just means that you are being rigorous and clear about what it is you are actually arguing ( actually arguing is another thing that continentals often lack). It isn't about agreeing with certain positions or certain philosophers, it's just a method. One can be a logical positivist ( Carnap), a Thomist ( Anscombe) a Kantian ( Richard Hare), and etc, and be doing analytic Philosophy to the same degree.

I disagree with Russell one plenty of things.I also happen to think that he was right on the dot with allot of things ( that a temporal priority clause in causation is nonsense, for example).

>>7132327

Naw, I need to know how the hell causation works, in clear terms and supported by rigorous argumentation in order to understand my experience of the world. Continental works just tends to extend outside of Philosophy itself into other disciplines, making it more interesting and "relevant" to people not so interested in the technical purely philosophical stuff that analytic ( and really anyone from Kant and earlier) deal with.

>>7132377

Analytic Feminist Philosophy is a thing you know. Considering that being openly for those positions would get you ostracized from any University in the current climate I don't think you know what you are talking about. Most analytic philosophers have all those same kind of dogmatic egalitarian beliefs as you do.


Analytic Philosophy is good
Continental Philosophy is good

[Anonymous No.7132683]

you guys turn philosophy into DC vs Marvel

[Anonymous No.7132727]

Continental for show, analytic for a pro.

[Anonymous No.7132769]

>>7132106
>continental
Fist fucking actual men
>analytical
"Possible girls"

[Anonymous No.7132864]

>>7132178
There's no philosophically substantive answer as to wherein the difference consists. It's pretty much just sociological.

[Anonymous No.7132875]

>>7132769
>Possible girls
Don't tell me that paper wasn't one of the cutest things you've ever read.

[Anonymous No.7132877]

>>7132875
I'm sorry, I didn't read "Possible girls," I read a better "Possible" paper.

[Anonymous No.7133267]

>>7132345
Pleb

[Chipstopher Colubus !Vu3GKcozRY No.7133290]

Analytical because Continental Philosophy is obscuritan pulled from the cloud mubo jumbo baseless assumptions while Analytics is logically sound on axioms that are hard to argue against and just basic common sense

[Anonymous No.7133299]

i have a love and appreciation for both, the only schism i have between philosophies is certain philosophers themselves.

[Anonymous No.7135271]

This thread needs to be burnt and made an example of.

[Anonymous No.7135297]

>>7132229
>His mathematical writings are not particularly groundbreaking,
>Sincerely,
>Random Dumbass from the Internets

[Anonymous No.7135319]

>>7132178
Analytic philosophy is professional, while continental philosophy is literary.

The former sets up problems and tries to work out technical solutions to them, often employing or contributing to the technical apparatuses of related disciplines, such as physics, linguistics, cognitive science, and so on.

The latter is a long tradition of various kinds of wordplay and concept invention, taking thoughts of previous authors and finding clever ways to twist or invert them, for the purpose of inspiring fresh enthusiasm for the discipline itself, as well as for fringe (usually left) political sentiments.

Continental philosophy is kind of like an elaborate game for the educated, while analytic philosophy is an arcane workshop for those professionally involved in specific modern western intellectual disciplines.

Both are pretty much irrelevant to daily life IMO, for anyone who is not specifically involved with the or related disciplines. And the people who claim there's no real difference are fooling themselves, the chasm at this point is massive, with the two scarcely interacting.

[Anonymous No.7135483]

>>7132137
Yeah I see your point you edgelord :)

[Anonymous No.7135535]

>>7132106
These questions lead to the philosophy. Since the antiquity, the philosophy is the activity of the philosophers, those who are not sage, but those who love the sophia in starting to wonder, in ontology, “why the things are such they are?”, and certainly more important, those who practise the sophia via the praxis. From the greek perspectives, the philosophy is the activity which is the ethos, to live the good life, as we go along our exploration of the truths, from the logic, of the knowledge, through the episteme, typically, throughout the reflexivity, once we have perceived our belonging to the world, in the manner of the contemporary philosopher Hadot or Gramsci who do not hesitate to speak of a spiritual praxis in order to change ourselves — the famous mediations on texts, the prayers, the contemplation inwards as well as outwards the frontier that we believe to be the self, perishable or not, material or not.

Nowadays, the philosophia is divided from the sciences, to such an extend that there is the famous cliché of a vague continental philosophy where the philosophers are the most disconnected from the sciences, and a analytic philosophy where the philosophers are supposedly more rational, more realist, more scientific, more careful about the words that used (in their course, and perhaps even in their daily lives), more empirical, even though they do not hesitate to go as far as asking questions such as “if we are transported on Mars, what moral doctrine should we adopt upon encounter of the marsians?” or “do unicorns exist?” or “should a person choose a future where ten billions of individuals will be very happy or a future where twenty billions of persons will be happy, but less happy than the persons in the first future?”.

[Anonymous No.7135540]

>>7135535
The philosophical departments are (physically) disconnected from the scientific ones, just as the mathematical ones are separated from the departments of computer science. All these dichotomies are more detrimental than anything else. Let us illustrate. The p-adic numbers which would prevent the hideous renormalization in the theory of the quantum fields, thus calling for a discussion, anew, of the motivation of the usage of the typical archimedean space that R is — invoked from the analysis for the values taken by the functions coding the observations, to the topology for the (relativistic) spaces, to the statistics for the values of the probabilities which were first dominantly bayesian, then dominantly frequencist, thought nowadays as either bayesian or frequencist; then after all, of its construction which leads us, in particular, to the questions of points and spaces of points as foundations, that is to say, the number and aside, its ontology by its computability; far away from the spaces devoid of points which themselves speak, in branching out, of the constructive logic, thereby of the mathematical proof, whereas a bunch of theorems in mechanics remain as expressible as provable in this logic, thereby inviting us on questioning the necessity and the sufficiency of the kind of tools in mathematics; consequently in metaphysics, for those seeing the mathematics as far more than a mere technical method.

[Anonymous No.7135546]

>>7135540
The philosophers put back the ontology in the language (natural), contrary to the mathematicians who attempt to relegate the ontology, the meaning on the logical side, even though an ontology more or less faint remains when the proofs are carried on the semantic side, instead of the syntactic one — even on the syntactic side, some ontology remains in the choice of logic. The philosophers do not hesitate to talk about what is not real. Let us take the concept of the idea. An idea is not real, but it is pure being. An idea is pure ontology; it is a thing that is not another thing; the purity defines, at least in part, the idea. The traditional example is the the one of the justice: “what is the idea of the justice? ”, “ what is justice? ”. Why the philosopher Plato talks about the concept of idea? Plato talks about this concept, put it higher than anything else, for it was important in its time, it solved a difficulty. Plato was looking for the selection of the pretenders (to the magistracy, let us say) since there is the competition in the democracy, as established by the Greeks. How to select the persons, with respect to some purpose? The concept of the idea solves the problem of what gives somebody the right, or not, to something.

[Anonymous No.7135552]

>>7135546
In the terms of the philosopher Deleuze, or even of the philosopher Benda, the task of the philosopher is the one of the intellectual coming from the university (since the scholastic): it is less the praxis of the good life, but rather is to create some concepts, through the creation of problematics. The philosophy is a perpetual take on the previous concepts, an activity close to the theology. The philosopher creates and does not discover. He must identify, at his time and location in space, in his culture, what are the problems in his society. This step is incredibly more difficult than what it appears. What matters less is the solution to their identified problems, especially if the solutions stem naturally from the good concepts created from a good outline of the problems. The identical situation applies in science according to the philosopher Bachelard. The problems are not self-defined. If nobody asks a questions, there is no problem and knowledge. The two perspectives from Deleuze and Bachelard are eminently theological, contrary to the common view remaining utilitarian, therefore consequential: we no longer create a solution in order to gain, to retrieve some utility, but to answer a (clever) problem. Nonetheless, a plurality of solution could remain.

[Anonymous No.7135558]

Analytic of course.

[Anonymous No.7135559]

>>7135552
If we replace the mathematics or the physics with the doctrine of a philosopher, the description works equally. Indeed, each person seem to have her evolving world, her evolving language, her evolving logic, her evolving intuitions, her evolving obvious facts, according to her, and her evolving inferences of facts, inferences which are logically obvious, once more according to her. In one word, each person has her own evolving truths, her own history, her own evolving context à la para-consistent formalized logic that is the discursive logic. Two worlds, two contexts are confronted when two persons talk; they need a dictionary to understand themselves since too many times, generally long after the beginning of the discussion, they understand that they do not even agree about the definitions of the key words that they use, for the natural languages have too much vagueness, circularity and emphases. In passing, let us note that this laxness of the natural language did not stop Spinoza to write his work in a mathematized form: a succession of deductions of statements from some definitions, axioms as well as theorems previously derived.

when, by some miracle, two persons have an efficient dictionary between their languages, that they agree on the definitions of the terms of one another, then it remains not assured that they share the same ideas, the same ideology, the same course of actions and speeches. Evidently, along many of the natural languages developed around a realist stance — with any wish to surpass some degree of the trichotomy object-medium-subject becoming difficult to express in those languages — a state and a national education will fix most of the experiences of the people belonging to the nation; however, for each individual, each definition of each word will have a fixed core, a elementary shared intuition, with an added nuance or subtlety that each individual adds from his proper experience.

[Anonymous No.7135560]

>continental philosophy
What kind of a search for truth is region-specific? Continental chemistry? Continental algebra? What nonsense!

[Anonymous No.7135563]

>>7135559
For each philosopher, through his mix of praxis and of discourses, we choose to follow the deductions that he makes according to the logic that he chooses. Since philosophy is done in natural language, there is more vagueness, emphasis, circularity than in mathematics, because the words of the natural language has more ontology since it is the task of the philosophers to do this. At some point in the deductions of the philosophers, we will be surprised, we will disagree, we will not follow the deduction because, in a logic foreign to us, each logical elementary step is intuition or imagination, intuition or imagination which depends on our affinities as well as our capabilities. This is where we continue, stop to believe in his doctrine or learn another one, or explore our own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7135580]

>>7132310
>Analytic Philosophers don't have the logical positivist prejudices they used to have
yes, because their fantasy failed miserably

>>7132310
>and are doing some really strong substantial work all over the place.
such as ....

[Anonymous No.7135591]

Continental of course, if you intend to waste your time on analytic philosophy you might as well study mathematics or physics instead.

[Anonymous No.7135598]

>>7133267
>bleb

[Anonymous No.7135617]

>>7132663
>>Naw, I need to know how the hell causation works, in clear terms and supported by rigorous argumentation in order to understand my experience of the world
yes, as if any work as been done by them

we still have a plurality of perspectives on causation in 2015 and any rationalist remains butthurt from this.

the problem with the analytics is that they are too stupid to stop being rationalist.

[Anonymous No.7135631]

>>7135319
>>Both are pretty much irrelevant to daily life IMO, for anyone who is not specifically involved with the or related disciplines.
because the philosophers are now the intellectuals and have left the field of the practice of their philosophy.

The philosophers are the teachers of the history of philosophy form 9 to 5 and sell a few conferences and books once in a while.

[Anonymous No.7136117]

Does anyone have a link to that philosophy guide that was being made but was never finished? It had a lot of good information.

I really just want it to see optimal pedagogical reading order for some things.

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.7136133]

>>7135560
You could be a professional atheist with those kind of tweets.

[Anonymous No.7136245]

>>7135598
pretty sure he is being sarcastic here

[Anonymous No.7136254]

>>7136117
google it. usually that stuff comes up

is this it?
http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Philosophy

[Anonymous No.7136312]

>>7132229
ur antitellectual

[Anonymous No.7136349]

>>7132261
> nor did he replace it with any thing even halfway adequate

It should be enough that faults are pointed out, even if alternatives aren't disclosed or their absence even mentioned.

[Anonymous No.7136448]

This is what happens when you let analytics write fiction

[Anonymous No.7136459]

>>7136448
A masterpiece?

[Anonymous No.7136477]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?>>7132239
Axioms are assumptions, they need to be justified.
>>7133290
>Analytics is logically sound on axioms that are hard to argue against and just basic common sense
>common sense
literally rigorless

[Anonymous No.7136499]

analytic. please abandon continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7136710]

>>7135598
Pleb

[Anonymous No.7137605]

>>7136448
i can't believe i own this book. i cant believe i have friends who own this book.

[Anonymous No.7137616]

>>7132424
>sophistry
find the fallacies and intent to mislead in russel's work

>university line. faculty line.
some departments have an analytic focus, some a continental focus, most some combo thereof

>fanboys
stfu

>It's sophistry to me.
keep it to yourself. you sound retarded.

[Anonymous No.7137627]

>>7135580
>their fantasy
kek

[Anonymous No.7137690]

>>7136477
>Axioms are assumptions, they need to be justified.
You're using 'justified' in a different sense than those against whom you're arguing.

>literally rigorless
seriously? read russell and whitehead's principia and tell me they didnt give a shit about justification. read goedels incompleteness and completeness theorems and tell me he didnt care about justification.

now read pretty much any continental philosopher after kant and find the rigor. pro tip: don't waste your time

>>7135546
>An idea is not real, but it is pure being. An idea is pure ontology; it is a thing that is not another thing; the purity defines, at least in part, the idea.

>>7135559
>for each individual, each definition of each word will have a fixed core, a elementary shared intuition, with an added nuance or subtlety that each individual adds from his proper experience.
Witty would like a word with you.

>Two worlds, two contexts are confronted when two persons talk; they need a dictionary to understand themselves since too many times, generally long after the beginning of the discussion, they understand that they do not even agree about the definitions of the key words that they use, for the natural languages have too much vagueness, circularity and emphases.
>for each individual, each definition of each word will have a fixed core, a elementary shared intuition, with an added nuance or subtlety that each individual adds from his proper experience.
Contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Actually: I need a tl;dr for all of your stuff.

[Anonymous No.7137713]

>>7132327
this tbh

[Anonymous No.7137733]

>>7135598
this cannot be real

[Anonymous No.7137957]

>>7136477
>literally rigorless
rigour does not exist

in whatever activity, what is rigour for one is not rigour for the other and is not interesting for a third.

[Anonymous No.7138142]

>>7132487
kill yourself. out to fuckin lunch.... keep fuckin that chicken you cunting fucking sciolist

[Anonymous No.7138147]

>>7132487
captious sciolist

[Anonymous No.7138376]

>>7136245
pretty sure you wish he was

[Anonymous No.7138410]

>>7132474
>philpapers.org/archive/SINPG
What the actual fuck

[Anonymous No.7138416]

>there are people on this board who don't think that an ideas historical context is relevant

[Anonymous No.7138992]

>>7132106
Continental.

That being said I stand by that philosophy in a scale larger than personally mulling it over is for retards. Writing is alright.

[Anonymous No.7139232]

can the anglos tell me about Nancy_Cartwright

[Anonymous No.7139267]

>>7132474
Holy shit, what? This was published?

[No True Scottist No.7139807]

>>7135580

Alexander Pruss
Jonathan Schaffer( his SEP article is an especially good overview of Analytic theories of causation at the moment)
Barry Loewer
Huw Price

Have all done good work in Causation. And since at least Molnar the "powers" account of causation has begun to be developed in analytic Philosophy. This of course doesn't negate the fact that there are still great philosophers working on Humean accounts and the like. The same authors I mentioned have done great work on Time and the ontological status of "natural laws" as well. Metaphysics isn't as "exciting" as some continental topics, but it is so general that it is integral for understanding the world and oneself in it.

>>7135617
Objectively, yes, there is work being done by them. Having a plurality of theories of causation just means that the discipline isn't full of dogmatists. When you are talking about the intricate details of any topic you are going to get some disagreement unless the discipline has completely tanked. Who are these "rationalists" in analytic philosophy specifically ( some textual evidence would be nice, have you ever actually read any analytic works? Or are you just resentful because someone in your philosophy department dissed your favorite continental ?) No one labels themselves with vague buzzwords like that I know of. If "rationalist" means the same as it did for the 17th century rationalists, privileging a priori knowledge over a posteriori knowledge, then I can tell you for sure that not all analytics are "rationalists" since such issues are widely debated within the field.

>>7137957

Adding in "interesting" is useless. To be "interesting" suggests a subjective pyschological state, rigor is very much objective. There is differences in what constitutes "rigor" across disciplines only insofar as the content of the disciplines differ. The element of "rigor" comes in in the way we deal with such content, and is the same in all cases. Rigor is clarity, skipping over as few details as possible, making as few unquestioned assumptions as possible, etc.

>>7139232

She's great. The 2nd best female Philosopher behind Anscombe. Her work on the possibility of there not being a uniformity nature, and her pragmatic defense of causation are very interesting.

[Anonymous No.7139859]

>>7132138
/thread

[Anonymous No.7141041]

>>7138416
>there are people on this board that do
Face it, Continental Phil is nothing but obscuritism instead of an actual search for truth.

[Anonymous No.7141046]

>>7141041
>worthless rhetoric
You don't seem interested in truth either

[Anonymous No.7141054]

>>7139267
No lol

[Anonymous No.7141087]

>>7132138
All obscurism is bad philosophy, it just happens to be that most of it occurs in Continental philosophy.
Anyone who majors in Contenential Phil is just perpetuating the stereotype of someone who's just looking for an easy major while trying to sound deep and meaningful.

[Anonymous No.7141096]

>>7141046
>worthless rhetoric
Yes, you can find plenty of that in any Continental Philosophy department.

[Anonymous No.7141205]

>>7141087
found the non-philosopher

[Anonymous No.7141213]

>>7137690
No need to flip off, he's just saying that common sense is rigorless.

The wallposter you're answering to is a notable copyposter from /sci, he has some knowledge of contemporary mathematics but doesn't make much sense most of the time.

>>7139807
Not the guy you're answering to but:

> rigor is very much objective

Very debatable. What's constitues a "rigorous proof" will depend not only on the field, but on the subfield, location, era and condition of publication of the proof, as well on the education and tastes of the reader.

>There is differences in what constitutes "rigor" across disciplines only insofar as the content of the disciplines differ.

Only insofar as the practice of the discipline differs, which includes content, but not only.

>Rigor is clarity

Actually rigor can often impede clarity, which is why research paper can be less stricly rigorous than, say, textbook (but it can also be the other way around, depend on the paper and the textbook). It's often a matter of compromise between being clear enough to make yourself understood and being rigorous enough to convince your readers.

>making as few unquestioned assumptions as possible

Not necessarily, you can make a very rigorous proof of a theorem with a lot of unquestioned assumptions as long as those assumptions are explicitly stated and play a role in the proof.

[Anonymous No.7141287]

contemplation>>>>>>phenomenology>continental>>analytic

[Anonymous No.7141313]

>>7139807
>work in Causation.
lel

I remember anscombe being serious about her view on causation.

[Anonymous No.7141331]

One doesn't effect the projectability of the other so both are worthwhile pursuits/studies/inquiries/whatever

[Anonymous No.7141513]

>>7139807
>Jonathan Schaffer( his SEP article is an especially good overview of Analytic theories of causation at the moment)
very good illustration of the obscure jargon used, the vapidity of the discourse exacerbated through its sterility.

[No True Scottist No.7141618]

>>7141213

Care to give some concrete examples for the first two claims? I don't really see it.
As far as "rigor is clarity" goes, rigor does not impede clarity- it may make it harder to follow for some because they can't keep up with the proof, but a proof that lacks rigor will more than likely seem more clear only insofar as the readers judging it happen to skip over some steps in between derivations in the same ways the proof does ( E.G. like taking modus ponens as obvious and not mentioning that one is utilizing it)

For the last claim I probably should have said that they contain as few enthymemes as possible. You are right, you can just take certain axioms as foundational, it is more so that a rigorous proof will at least express these rather than just taking them for granted and not expressing them.

>>7141313

Congratulations, you found a typo on a 4chan post.

What's wrong with Anscombe's views on causation ? Hume was a pretty weak philosopher in comparison to her.

>>7141513

>very good illustration of the obscure jargon used

The terms of art used are fine, if you know the terms then everything is clear and economical- there is no purposeful obfuscation involved.

>the vapidity of the discourse exacerbated through its sterility

What makes it vapid and sterile exactly ? And how is that not an issue of your own subjective reaction to the work?, rather than an objective flaw of the work.

[Anonymous No.7141769]

>>7132377
This may have been true at one point, but today there are analytic philosophers addressing these issues. You might be interested in:
Sally Haslanger - Resisting Reality
Elizabeth Anderson - The Imperative of Integration
Jason Stanley - How Propaganda Works
Charles Mills - The Racial Contract

[Anonymous No.7141789]

>>7132106
You guys do realize most working philosophers nowadays don't really consider the "analytic"/"continental" divide all that meaningful anymore, right? Most people who still harp on this don't realize it's not the 1960s anymore and don't have any idea what the academic climate is like now.

Figures typically associated with classic "continental" philosophy are discussed and interpreted in anglophone western departments all the time, most often in a historical context. Many "analytic" philosophers (what you would even consider "analytic" nowadays isn't clear, since most don't identify as such) take people like Derrida or Foucault seriously, they're just not immediately relevant to the problems they're interested in.

The reason people like Zizek or Badiou aren't taken seriously in a lot of anglophone departments isn't because they're "continental" or whatever, it's they think it's just poor philosophy. Most philosophers feel (rightly, I think) that working methods like clarity of presentation and rational argumentation are what all philosophers should subscribe to, not just analytics

[Anonymous No.7141804]

>>7141789
That said, I do think certain projects in analytic philosophy are dead ends. I don't think conceptual analysis has really anywhere left to go, it's been useful to get a better understand of our problems but hasn't provided any significant roads to solving them. A huge chunk of epistemology which focuses on conceptual analysis is totally misguided and relevant imo. Still, I wouldn't call this a problem with analytic philosophy itself so much as a large subset of philosophers with certain methodological commitments.

[Anonymous No.7141808]

>>7141804
*irrelevant

[Anonymous No.7141812]

Russell is a way better stylist than the vast majority of continentals.

[Anonymous No.7141851]

>>7141618
(I'm not the guy(s) you're replying to)

What makes it vapid and sterile exactly ? And how is that not an issue of your own subjective reaction to the work?

I do think this is a fair criticism of some analytic phil (not to mention that contental phil can be just as vapid). Certain topics have become so bogged down in minutiae and tertiary literature and have gotten so far from the original issues (knowledge accounts and Gettier responses, for instance) that it's not clear we're getting anywhere. I suppose you could say this is a problem of academic discourse in general, but at least in other disciplines (like psychology) there are clearer ideas of what progresses the discipline as whole which can buoy all these super technical discussions. And many philosophers have the questionable assumption that the best way to tackle a big problem is to solve all the sub-problems and sub-sub-problems and sub^n problems.

[Anonymous No.7141854]

>>7141851
>What makes it vapid and sterile exactly ? And how is that not an issue of your own subjective reaction to the work?

sorry, meant to green text this line

[Anonymous No.7141907]

>>7132321
good b8 i r8 8/8 :^)

[Anonymous No.7142179]

>>7141205
Yes, Continentals are non-philosophers.

[Anonymous No.7142614]

>>7141287
This man gets it !

>>7141041
>>7133290
>>7141087


for the ones saying continental is "mumbo jumbo", "obscure" and so on :
The point in Analytics is to show you what is deductible from some axioms that are "common sense". It is therefore useful in some fields within Philosophy
However Analytics is useless regarding metaphysics because it deals with justifying axioms and questioning our common sense.

A philosopher doesn't have to be understandable. But he had to do everything possible to make himself so.

Remember what Heidegger told us : "Everybody undersands 'The sky is blue', 'I am happy' [...] If what is self-evident and this alone-'the coverts judgments of common reason' (Kant)- is to become and remain the explicit theme of our analysis (as 'the business of philosophers'), then the appeal to self-evidence in the realm of basic philosophical concepts, and indeed with regard to the concept of 'being', is a dubious procedure.

>TL;DR : Analytics is liguistics mixed but with maths and that's nowhere near philosophy.

>pic related for butthurt analytics

[Anonymous No.7143866]

>>7142614
Schpenhauer is Analytic by virtue of not being obscuritism.
Continental Philosophy is just a label we give to "philosophy" that is nothing but obscuritism and nonsense, and Analytic to real philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7143876]

>>7143866

Wow.

[Anonymous No.7144017]

bump

[Anonymous No.7144633]

>>7132106
Continental, skepticism breaks logic.

[No True Scottist No.7145278]

>>7142614

Analytic Philosophy isn't so reducible to what follows from "common sense", whether we can take "common sense" judgement as reliable starting points is debated in every field of Analytic Philosophy. Plenty of analytic metaphysicians don't subscribe to common sense views of phenomena. Schaffer thinks that matter is infinitely divisible ( is atomism "common sense"? who knows). A large amount of those working on the Philosophy of time believe in a four dimensional block universe rather than genuinely passing time. David Lewis thinks that the possible worlds we use in possible world semantics have the same ontological status as the actual world. Many working on causation think that causal relata are determined by transcendent rather than immanent things, etc. How is Kripke denying the pairing of necessary/apriori and contingent/a posteriori truths common sense ?

Continental Philosophy gets flack for a lack of clarity, a lack of strong deductive arguments, and using very weird idiosyncratic language, that often obscures what are actually fairly moderate conclusions ( as Foucault explained to Searle, you need 10% incomprehensible so that people think you are deep), not for bizarre conclusions or questions.

>>7141851

I think that is where Analytic Philosophy gains its upper hand really. You need to have those details covered in order to have intelligible theories, and the realization of the progress in the discipline comes with being caught up with the literature in general. It's not so much about individual super-star philosophers giving us masterworks that can answer every problem in 500 pages- that rarely goes well. Rather, you work within the discipline with thousands of others, on your own small piece- a few will compile larger and more substantial works from the pieces. But I would rather be involved in a discipline that has more substantial and carefully thought out ideas, but requires some tediousness- than a discipline that has lots of big conclusions that are clearly wrong and poorly thought out because the details were ignored.

This is not to say that Continental Philosophy is bad. Nietzsche gives us something that no analytic ever could. But I'm not going to go to Nietzsche for epistemology or metaphysics, because his power as a thinker lies in the type of things that can't really be expressed rigorously or through clean and clear argumentation.

[Anonymous No.7145295]

>>7145278
>Schaffer thinks that matter is infinitely divisible ( is atomism "common sense"? who knows). A large amount of those working on the Philosophy of time believe in a four dimensional block universe rather than genuinely passing time.

Wow, hacks trying to make statements and give opinions about the universe while waffling on a chair .

How valuable and useful.

[Anonymous No.7145303]

>>7132474
>philpapers.org/archive/SINPG
Modal Realism is retarded, which is why it's not taken seriously by reputable academics.

[Anonymous No.7145434]

>>7145295
>i dont know shit about those theories to which you're referring and its all pointless

autist

[Anonymous No.7145438]

>>7142614
>I have no idea how Analytic philosophy works, so Heidegger and co. are doing it right.

[Anonymous No.7145443]

>>7142614
>A philosopher doesn't have to be understandable. But he had to do everything possible to make himself so.
Uhhhh... Maybe you should rephrase that? idk

[Anonymous No.7145455]

>>7145434
In that case it would surely be easy for you to prove me wrong and demonstrate the valuable theorems and results that these philosophers have proven during their pondering about how "matter is infinitely divisible" , for example?

[Anonymous No.7145539]

>>7145455
If you've never had the intuition that matter is infinitely divisible - like a point in Cartesian space - I can't help you. If you are content to dismiss philosophy of time, in evident ignorant of its methods and intents, as mere 'waffling on a chair' and 'mak[ing] statements', I definitely can't help you out here - nor do I have to in order for you opinions to be the baseless autistic shite they are. I think I can infer with some confidence that there's a lot of analytic philosophy you've neither read nor at any rate understood.

>>7142614
>Analytics is useless regarding metaphysics because it deals with justifying axioms and questioning our common sense.
This is just baffling.... Your concept of philosophy is likely much too different from what mine and other's is. And if you think it's only analytics who do that, you've definitely misread Kant and others. Your appeal to Heidegger - King of Piffle and former Nazi - shows your ridiculous assumption that all of analytic philosophy is just desultory questioning of common sense and supposedly self-evident intuitions - to no apparent avail and as if doing so is not worth anyone's time. You've assumed a lot without furnishing much in the way of justification.

And I might as well do the tu quoque bit and ask you what value Continental philosophy is or has been to anything.

[Anonymous No.7145554]

>>7132106
>philosophy based on location

Kek, this is why philosophy is irrelevant. Imagine of there was "continental astrophysics" or "analytical biology". What a crock

[Anonymous No.7145561]

>>7142614
You also seem to assume that metaphysics should be a primary goal of philosophy - and as if it's feasible to begin with and, further, that questioning common sense and justifying axioms is not important for metaphysics. What allows you to believe any of this? I'm interested - really.

[Anonymous No.7145566]

>>7145539
>you've never had the intuition that matter is infinitely divisible - like a point in Cartesian space - I can't help you.

I'm sorry but that isn't a theorem, and space isn't matter.
>you are content to dismiss philosophy of time,
Yikes that isn't a theorem or a result either. I'm sorry, you can't even post a single theorem or result from either of those "valuable" fields? Yikes.

Wow this is really embarrassing.
I feel embarrassed for you having this conversation with you.

[Anonymous No.7145584]

>>7145566
>Yikes that isn't a theorem or a result either. I'm sorry, you can't even post a single theorem or result from either of those "valuable" fields? Yikes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

>I'm sorry but that isn't a theorem, and space isn't matter.
1. It's probably the conclusion of a theorem.
2. Nobody said space and matter are the same.
3. It's also not my job to justify those philosophies.

>Wow this is really embarrassing.
I feel embarrassed for you having this conversation with you.
Where do you live? I am feeling light-headed right now I'm so pissed off. I will cut your fucking throat open, you piddling fuckin' cretin.

[Anonymous No.7145592]

>>7145566
>Wow this is really embarrassing. I feel embarrassed for you having this conversation with you.
Where do you live? Seriously. I live outside of D.C. We need to meet. Bring a bat or knife or something. Argumentum ad baculum. I will feed you bits of your own dumb fucking brain.

[Anonymous No.7145638]

>>7145584
>>7145592
Hahaha wow , just wow.

It's "probably" the conclusion of a theorem? What are you doing trying to defend something you don't know about? Why did you bother name-dropping those things in the first place if you don't know what they are or what they mean?

Oh and look you still haven't presented a single theorem or result of either of the "valuable" fields you mentioned.

>getting so butthurt over your intellectual ineptitude you want to fight me
Lol "philosophers"
Are you black? This is priceless.
Maybe try and be less of a failure intellectually huh champ?

[Anonymous No.7146129]

>>7142614
Kant, and Schopenhauer by extension, were closer to Analytic, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.7146490]

>>7142614
kant was pretty analytic. and of course schoppy - who also talked a lot about math - was very much influenced by kant's metaphysics

[Anonymous No.7146544]

>>7145303
>Modal Realism is retarded, which is why it's not taken seriously by reputable academics.
exactly the converse

reputable people do not take it seriously, they do not connect to it, so they call it retarded as they are egotistical-hypocritical and think that only their thoughts are relevant.

[Anonymous No.7146569]

>>7145278
>a lack of strong deductive arguments
just like the analytics who brag about being more rigours whereas they are not.


>>7145278
>because his power as a thinker lies in the type of things that can't really be expressed rigorously or through clean and clear argumentation.
the question is why you want rigour and what you call rigour in natural language.


>>7141851
>What makes it vapid and sterile exactly ? And how is that not an issue of your own subjective reaction to the work?

vapid because they do not even question their own endeavour. they lack reflexivity in telling to other people why their work matters

sterile because they claim to seek truth, again without motivating it, and even worse fail so far to discover their truths posited to exist. they do not even know what truth is apparently.


the first thing about rigour is to state what are the problems AND why they are problems. Just as this level, you will have many who will remain indifferent to what you say, you will have a few who will agree with you, more or less, and you will find others who will say that what you peg as a problem is not a problem at all.

[Anonymous No.7146573]

>>7145278
>Plenty of analytic metaphysicians don't subscribe to common sense views of phenomena. Schaffer thinks that matter is infinitely divisible ( is atomism "common sense"? who knows). A large amount of those working on the Philosophy of time believe in a four dimensional block universe rather than genuinely passing time. David Lewis thinks that the possible worlds we use in possible world semantics have the same ontological status as the actual world. Many working on causation think that causal relata are determined by transcendent rather than immanent things, etc.
the thing is that to each one of them, their position seems common sense. These people take their intuitions as more natural than the intuition of their neighbours. The worst part is that they try to sell their intuition through some rationality and deny other intuition to be relevant [but of course, they are all equally stupid]

[Anonymous No.7146598]

the analytic people begin before phenomenology. this is why they are out of relevance. the first thing to consider is the perceptions.

[Anonymous No.7146603]

>>7146598
no, the first thing to consider is being
ontology/metaphysics is first

[Anonymous No.7147072]

>>7146569
Found a tard

[Anonymous No.7147074]

>>7146573
You sound so fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.7147075]

>>7145554
stop posting richard

[Anonymous No.7147408]

>the rationalist is led to his stance because he cannot bear what he calls, after having introduce the dichotomy contingency-necessity, the contingency of the world.
>He thinks prejudicially that the world is ordered and whines when he fails to prove that he makes sense out of it.
>He invented the ''causation'' in order to ''explain'' an event X: behind X, there are many other little events that we miss. He says X is caused by Y, Y is caused by Z, ...and stops sooner or later.
>Naturally, he has no clue what a cause his; and he prefers to call cause what is correlation to better sell and to mock those who have no faith in his scam.
>The rationalist claims to be rigorous because he bases his stance on empirical grounds through the faith in induction. The rationalist says that '' induction works more or less, so let's jump quickly into rationality to ''explain'' the world and stop being an infertile empiricist ''.
>But since he has no idea what a cause is, he must return to the empiricism in claiming that '' since some guy in a lab claims to be able to perceive event W which is caused, according to me, by Z, then my causal chain X, Y, W, Z'' is true.


>Since the rationalist has faith in induction, we can use this same induction on his sterility to produce truth. But the rationalist being weak, he refuses to hear this and call everybody not having faith in him, either a blind sheep following some cult or some degenerate sceptic.
>So far, the rationalist remains unable to dispute the nihilism/relativism/scepticism/solipsism which was his initial goals.

[Anonymous No.7147427]

>>7147408
none of that serves as warrant for continental babble. all of what you say can be and has been philosophized analytically.

[Anonymous No.7147433]

>>7132310
>from my own academic career
Lol, christposting on 4chan is not academic. Just die off.

[Anonymous No.7147442]

>>7147433
did he imply that it was?

>christposting on 4chan is not academic [hence] Just die off.
kk

[Anonymous No.7147465]

>>7147433
i may seem like a contentious analytic pedant saying this to a continental autist (this is perhaps pleonastic) like you, but a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent: What in fuck does anon's academic career have to do with the truth or falsity of his conclusion - or with the supposed analytic-continental divide? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi))

[Anonymous No.7147467]

>>7132137
>tripfag

[Anonymous No.7147470]

>>7147442
i may seem like a contentious analytic pedant saying this to a misological continental autist (this is perhaps pleonastic) of your ilk, but a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent: What in fuck does anon's academic career have to do with the truth or falsity of his conclusion - or with the supposed analytic-continental divide? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi))

[Anonymous No.7147474]

>>7145561
Not who you were responding to, but why shouldn't metaphysics be the primary goal of philosophy? Aristotle called metaphysics first philosophy, Plato believed the highest form of understanding is derived through knowledge of first principles. Every branch of philosophy is dependent on some metaphysical system, science (particularly physics) relies on metaphysical presuppositions and have run up against metaphysical issues their theories entail anyway.

[Anonymous No.7147475]

>>7147433
i may seem like a contentious analytic pedant saying this to a misological continental autist (this is perhaps pleonastic) of your ilk, but a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent: What in fuck does anon's academic career have to do with the truth or falsity of his conclusion - or with the supposed analytic-continental divide? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi))

[Anonymous No.7147497]

>>7147474
i am skeptical of it just because its hard to talk metaphysically without verging on nonsense, though you're right that there are first metaphysical principles upon which any theoretical system is ultimately based. but, i have a feeling that anon's idea of what metaphysics ought to entail is much too descriptive than is philosophically warranted. a complete metaphysics should/would be the end of philosophy if it werent so impossible. im thinking of the referential imprecisions of language, the unreliability of causal attribution, the difficulty of getting past mereological nihilism and the problems that imposes on concepts of identity, all the objections to realism, and on and on.

[Anonymous No.7147505]

>>7147475

youz zoundz loikz a bad unlettereed joyce

[Anonymous No.7147508]

>>7147474
i am skeptical of it just because its hard to talk metaphysically without verging on nonsense, though you're right that there are first metaphysical principles upon which any theoretical system is ultimately based. but, i have a feeling that anon's idea of what metaphysics ought to entail is much too descriptive than is philosophically warranted. a complete metaphysics should/would be the end of philosophy if it werent so impossible. im thinking of the referential imprecisions of language, the unreliability of causal attribution, the difficulty of getting past mereological nihilism and the obvious problems that imposes on any concept of objects and relations thereamong, all the objections to realism, the inexplicability of mental states and the problems that imposes on any philosophy of mind (and thus on epistemology too, because they're called 'branches of philosophy' for a reason, as you more or less note), on and on.

[Anonymous No.7147511]

>>7147505
im not on 4chan to write my best and impress my fellow autists.

and you're doing it again....

[Anonymous No.7147514]

DAILY REMINDER
Analytical ------- Cucktinental
Rationality ------ feelings
logic -------------- obscurantism
Masculine -------- feminine
heterosexual ------- gay
sane ---------------- mentally ill
capitalist ----------- marxist
meaning ---------- nonsense
science ----------- wish-fulfillment
humble ---------- pretentious
real -------------- false
redpill ------------ bluepill
men---------------women
Hitler ------------ Zizek
Race-realism -- "social construct"
Grown ups ----- children
essentialism ----- muh all is relative xDD
tradition --------- revolution
Fixed gender roles ------- transsexuality
4chan ------------- reddit
right-wing --------- left-wing
Hierarchy --------- equality
atheist ------------- muh feels in God
STEM ------------ liberal arts

[Anonymous No.7147516]

>>7147505
btw im quoting blake you unlettered shit

[Anonymous No.7147524]

>>7147508
I hear 'nonsense' tossed around as an argument against metaphysical speculation all the time, but I've never seen how that holds up. Whether or not we have the means to answer these questions, there ARE answers to them. The world is either one way or another. They aren't nonsensical questions, just difficult to answer as you say. But giving up and calling them unanswerable shouldn't be our response, we should be doubling down.

[Anonymous No.7147785]

>>7147514
Wow, this is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.7147793]

>>7147785
refute anything i dare you

[Anonymous No.7147829]

>>7147514
talk about false dichotomy

[Anonymous No.7147836]

>>7147829
Prove it instead of being all butthurt like a women

[Anonymous No.7149345]

>>7145638
>What are you doing trying to defend something you don't know about? Why did you bother name-dropping those things in the first place if you don't know what they are or what they mean?

I wasn't the first to mention them. And I was giving a very general vindication of philosophy of time and space via my arguments in defense of analytic philosophy. I also never claimed them to be valuable. I also don't know what sense of that word you mean to invoke.

>Lol "philosophers"
>Are you black? This is priceless.
>Maybe try and be less of a failure intellectually huh champ?
I used the plural of the word 'philosophy' in a common and accepted sense: i.e., in reference to a particular philosophical mode, school, or theory. And I'm being the nigger?

[No True Scottist No.7149682]

>>7146569

>just like the analytics who brag about being more rigours whereas they are not.

Like who ? Where are the analytics who forego deductive argumentation while faulting other philosophers for doing the same thing ?

>the question is why you want rigour and what you call rigour in natural language.

That's my point exactly, in some topics rigor is a plus, in other topics you won't get anywhere trying to be rigorous, it's the same reason why mystic theology isn't rigorous. The question of what counts as rigor in natural language is dealt with analytic philosophers of language.

>vapid because they do not even question their own endeavour. they lack reflexivity in telling to other people why their work matters

That's false, plenty of analytic philosophers relate their topic to the "larger consequences". The question I would ask is why aren't philosophical sub-questions important for their own sake ? "Mattering" is just an arbitrary subjective property that the mind implants on things.

>sterile because they claim to seek truth, again without motivating it, and even worse fail so far to discover their truths posited to exist. they do not even know what truth is apparently.

Who says that all analytic philosophers seek truth, pragmaticists certainly do not. And how is someone's subjective state of being motivated or not have anything to do with the quality of the work being done ? The fact that some random person isn't interested in a theory of predication has nothing to do with the theory and everything to do with them. On top of that, if analytic philosophy is bad because those involved often end up being proven wrong- then there is'nt a philosophy that is'nt a failure in this sense.

>the first thing about rigour is to state what are the problems AND why they are problems.

Which pretty much every analytic philosopher does- they will point out how the idea they are defending has an apparent contradiction, or that there is a part of the theory that is unintelligible or unexplored- that is enough to show that there is a problem. They will point to how their topic relates to other topics that others may be interested in.

Your broad generalizations simply do not hold here at all.

>>7146573
This is false. Plenty of analytics are open that their views are prima facie implausible- but hold it anyways because they think it has more explanatory power or they have found a really convincing argument for it.

>The worst part is that they try to sell their intuition through some rationality and deny other intuition to be relevant [but of course, they are all equally stupid]

Ok but you are assuming that everyone in analytic philosophy argues for common sense intuitions, which is false.

>>7147433
I study in a philosophy department that is primarily analytic, meaning I have actually read a fair ammount of analytic philosophy. I have never heard anyone actually schooled in the discipline make any of these baseless broad generalizations about it.

[Anonymous No.7149707]

>>7132106
Continental because I don't have autism.

But I fucking hate the extreme obfuscating non-sense that continental philosophy sometimes produce.

[Anonymous No.7149712]

>>7149707
>sometimes

[Anonymous No.7149939]

what a silly question.

[Anonymous No.7150007]

>>7147793
>>7147836

>THESE R MY PREFERENCES
>PROVE ME WRONG FAGGOT I DARE U

[Anonymous No.7150089]

>>7137690
>Contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Actually: I need a tl;dr for all of your stuff.
no contradiction: it is difficult for two parties to communicate when they do not share the same life.

[Anonymous No.7150205]

>>7146603
>ontology/metaphysics is first
no, phenomenology-> epistemology-> ontology

actually epistemology and ontology are within phenomenology. We never leave phenomenology

[Anonymous No.7150595]

>>7132106
bump

[Anonymous No.7151068]

>>7150089
ya i misread you because i agree.

>>7150205
language* before all. and phenomena dont make sense w/out noumena

[Anonymous No.7151277]

>>7150595
Bump for Continentals getting BTFO[1] ITT[2]

[1] "beat the fuck out", a phrase commonly used to describe someone having their argument completely cut down.
[2] " in this thread", a phrase used to indicate that whatever precedes it is occurring in the thread that it was posted in.

[Anonymous No.7151421]

>>7151277

>beat the fuck down

Lurk moar, newfie

[Anonymous No.7152555]

>>7151421
Learn to read

[Anonymous No.7152629]

>>7152555

fite me irl trips wastin' faget i will blow u the fuck out m8

[Anonymous No.7153310]

o-ok

[Anonymous No.7154297]

>>7153310
NIETCHAN

[Anonymous No.7154638]

Philosophy pleb here.

Requesting the how-to-get-into-philosophy chart. I don't want to make a new thread for this.

[Anonymous No.7154641]

>>7154638
Greeks.

[Anonymous No.7154649]

>>7154641
Meme.

[Anonymous No.7154654]

>>7154649
Do you really think that 4chan has the power to decide what is relevant or not? Every philosophy student has been starting start with the Greeks since forever.