Which side do you choose, Sup Forums?
I know you are amateurs in philosophy, so I will give you three names from either side that give a rounded view of the conventions of their respective school.
Continental: Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jurgen Habermas
Analytic: Gottlob Frege, AJ Ayer, Alvin Plantinga.
Other urls found in this thread:
ditext.com
joelvelasco.net
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
zeww.uni-hannover.de
zeww.uni-hannover.de
twitter.com
Continental, get fucked Bruce
Tell me why, then. Is it the Marxism and feminism that appeals to you? The fact that it is dominated by the French? The homosexuality, perhaps?
All philosophy is waste of time. Might as well do media studies or psychology or sociology or gender studies or creative writing
My philosophy is to kill people I don't like
How should time be managed so it isn't wasteful?
>HURR GAYS AND MARXISTS HAHA
Nice demonstration of analytic philosophy's measured inquiry, criminal
Where do Emerson, Mills, and Lewis land?
Those are my niggas.
You haven't answered my request.
> Which side do you choose, Sup Forums?
Like that's even a real question.
Emerson is irrelevant and contributed nothing, so it's best to ignore him. Mill, if that is who you're referring to, is also irrelevant. Lewis was analytic.
Why choose continental?
>Philosophy degree
>Wanting to be an elitist
MY FUCKING SIDES
The fact that you only mentioned relatively modern names makes it clear that you know jack shit about philosophy in general.
'Continental' philosophy was calling for strictly logical and rational deductions centuries before even Occam was born. Try again.
The fact that you only know older names shows that you have no idea of contemporary philosophical discussion.
fuck off to the continent then
Philosophers/Philosophy literally designed the logical systems primarily employed in computer science and higher-level mathematics. Without analytic philosophy we never would have developed the computer, or at least it would have taken longer for other people to discover and implement it.
Cuntinentals just think philosophy is a contest of who can devise the most pseudo-intellectual drivel, at least that is how it appears.
is this continental or analytic?
Analytic.
Quine and what's his face killed analytics dead get over it fags.
This will be worth a laugh. Explain how Quine killed analytic philosophy.
Because I want to talk about big ideas that impart meaning to my life rather than niggling over the semantics of words like a fucking Jew.
I don't think you know what the schools actually are.
With his essay "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."
Is this even a philosophy text? It straight up looks like just biology or population statistics.
Don't judge a book by its cover.
You're not explaining how you came to your conclusion.
Continental philosophy = moral relativism, marxism, feminism, post-modernism etc.
The French basically ruined philosophy with the help of their German neighbours.
> I don't think you know what the schools actually are.
Pretty much. All I know is that (((Brits))) have a bunch of fags like Wittgenstein and Hart whereas continentals have cool dudes like that Prussian dude and Nietzsche.
Although to be quite honest family I haven't read anything but >> since college but that's not gonna stop me from angrily spouting my opinions and calling a person I disagree with a Jew.
tl;dr: Analytic philosophy is a machination of the Hebes.
You. Fucking. Kike.
Quine really lays it out better than I could manage to summarize at 4am on this Kyrgyzstani trading card forum so why don't you just read the essay dude.
Really? I wrote my thesis on this subject and I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're misunderstanding Quine on a fundamental level.
I don't know what you're trying to say. Lay off the memes and "redditisms" a bit.
My problem with continental philosophy is its disconnect with the real world.
Many philosophers of science have attacked heritability research with arguments on the supposed incoherence of the concept of heritibility and argue it's impossible or nonsensical to quantifying it. This position is still dominant.
Sesardic shows that most of their arguments are based on strawmen and misunderstandings of the actual concepts used in quantitative/behavioral genetics.
There isn't much discussion of empirical data, it's more of a philosophical defense of the methodology used by behavioral geneticists.
Here's an earlier paper by Sesardic on these issues:
joelvelasco.net
here's the book:
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
Art & science
It doesn't matter if you don't know what I'm trying to say. I'll just keep insulting you, you wily shekel grubbing merchant. You can't trick me with your Jewish lies.
his two other papers on these issues:
zeww.uni-hannover.de
...
>no Hume
trashed
So what do you like about continental philosophy?
> BTFOing (((logical positivism))) and its religious extra-empirical tennets
> killing empiricism
ok chaim
>Wittgenstein
>Fag
Kill yourself
Are you autistic? You sound autistic.
Are you gay?
Yes actually
your point?
That explains a lot.
...
I doubt you could even define metaphysics.
Kabbalistic gibberish.
best post
What do you mean "define"?
Analytical philosophy. The rest is pseudo-science, does not provide any truthful knowledge, and does not deserve the funding it currently gets.
State the meaning of.
I'm a rationalist because empiricism is logically unjustifiable.
Continental philosophy talks about important subjects, and its authors tend to be more broadly educated, with better awareness of subjects like history. Unfortunately its standards of clarity are extremely low, and lots of continental philosophy reads like word salad. This also makes it extremely easy for hacks to smuggle in pure bullshit disguised as "deep philosophy", because it takes a lot of time and dedication to analyze a text and conclude if it's worthwhile or not.
Analytical philosophy has mathematics as an ideal of clarity, and places huge value on clarity and logical consistency of their arguments. So it's relatively easier to spot a fraud or retard, and arguments in analytical philosophy sometimes (but very rarely) do have definite results, proving one side right and other side wrong. Unfortunately, many analytical philosophers tend to be philistines - basically, they are fundamentally ignorant about things like history of philosophy and everything else outside their narrow field of interest (usually logic, semantics and such). Their arguments always devolve into semantic nitpicking, and they write thousands of papers on subjects no one except analytical philosophers cares about.
Sounds like some autistic analytic shit. No thanks.
They are methods, not related at all to the subjects which are frequently discussed. Try again.
Yes, and these methods lead to continental philosophy that reads like byproduct of schizophrenia, and analytic philosophy endlessly debating stuff that makes Scholastics look down to earth, relevant and exciting by comparison.
Do you have a better methodological alternative to conducting philosophy that other people are magically missing?
What's are some good introductory books on epistemology and logic?
Sure, balance both approaches.
>Absolutely dialectic
How would that be better?
Mixing water with shit doesn't make it potable.
In what way? What is either "not getting" in your view?
You're criticizing what you perceive as a commonality of results that either general methodology seems to produce, but saying "balance them" doesn't tell us a damn thing about *HOW* anyone is to "balance" them or what, if anything, either does "wrong".
The Problems of Philosophy, an early essay by Bertrand Russell.
I am more inclined to follow the philosophical leanings of Donatien Alphonse Francois, the Marquis de Sade, so let us examine Sadean Philosophy:
Mankind is not a "noble savage", but merely a savage, cruel and given to malicious intent, whose baser instincts are only held in check by the threat of superior force being implemented upon him in case he yields to his natural condition of savagery. "Society", which stands in judgement, is a fabrication built upon hypocrisy. Cruelty is hardwired into our brains and nervous systems and the enjoyment of cruelty for its own sake is perfectly understandable.
Despite all this, de Sade never exercised the death penalty even when made head judge of Paris during the French Revolution, refusing even to kill the very people who jailed him for his excesses (his father-in-law).
De Sade was jailed again, for "moderation".
Treatise of Human Nature.
hahaha faggot, implying 'muh logical obvious truths' arnt actually empirical evolutionarily selected rules passed down because your forefathers were sufficiently non-retarded to be able to bring a steak to their mouths. sadly evolution is a stochastic process that does not present a monotonic increase towards a higher state of being. TLDR; kill yourself
t. globalist shill
Whether or not anyone or anything living ever existed, 1+1 would still equal two. So that's incredibly obviously false~
>Mankind is not a "noble savage", but merely a savage, cruel and given to malicious intent, whose baser instincts are only held in check by the threat of superior force being implemented upon him in case he yields to his natural condition of savagery.
No evidence or logical progression showing a lack of objectivity in this statement.
>"Society", which stands in judgement, is a fabrication built upon hypocrisy. Cruelty is hardwired into our brains and nervous systems and the enjoyment of cruelty for its own sake is perfectly understandable.
Same as above.
How do people swallow this rubbish?
Globalist is just a cover word for Jew and there is nothing Jewish about Russell, I'm afraid. Just a senile man after the second world war.
This one gets it.
>How would that be better?
You're an analytic, so no matter how obvious something is, it will never be obvious enough for you. i won't even try.
I wouldn't call these results common, just pointing out they both have problems.
An easy first step for Continental writers, for example, would be simply adopting some basic guidelines for their arguments, like limit the name-dropping, using shorter and clearer sentences for the sake of readability, not using obscure terminology where more common-sense one would be sufficient.
>You're an analytic, so no matter how obvious something is, it will never be obvious enough for you. i won't even try.
Great argument. Just like a continental to not substantiate his claims.
I love continental philosophy, especially Baitaille and Derrida.
Am trying to force myself to read analytic stuff but it's not as pleasing to read as the continental stuff, which is more 'poetic'. (I'm from a literature background so this is a big deal).
>just pointing out they both have problems
Yeah?
LIKE...?
You've only complained about outputs. You haven't identified a single aspect of either methodology as problematic.
>I'm from a literature background
Which is why you probably won't understand analytic philosophy. Just stick to your purple prose.
1+1=2 is a tautology faggot; as meaningfull as muh=dick, if I define those symbols in that manner. or aleph-null is bix-nood, for a real world example of mental masturbation over imaginary symbolic constructions gone haywire.
the profound thing is that this symbolic construction called the natural numbers has such a direct connection to our best models of the empirical world.
> ratiocucks BTFO
You know fully well where that would lead. i would say "i would be better because such and such", and you would say "In what precise sense are you using the word 'better'?" and it would just go downhill from there.
This is fitting.
Tautologies are meaningful because they're necessarily true, and truth is the most valuable thing in life.
Suck my dick you hedonistic worthless illogical empiricuck scum~
Very much Analytic. I don't need to know the names of these faggots. I've only really have any respect for the classical philosophers. After them it's farty nonsense that is of no use to anyone.
Why are you so opposed to defining your terms and substantiating your arguments?
Wrong.
> muh=dick
> bix=noob
omg necessarily true statements because thats how i just defined them. better go masturbate now over how clever i am.
>common sense
lmaoing at ur lyf pham
Delusional and angry~
Because I am not writing a peer-reviewed paper for a fucking "Mind" and I'm not obligated to have a 2-hour debate with you where we end up arguing over precise definition of the word "preference" or "understanding", having already forgotten what we were dicussing in the first place.
Don't make claims if you can't back them up. Now get out of this thread to avoid further humiliation.
If you aren't willing to put int he leg work then don't have discussion. No one wants to talk to you if you aren't willing to define your terms.
>Don't make claims if you can't back them up
Make me stop.
You know as well as I do that these arguments about definitions never lead anywhere. Whuch is why the only people interested in reading analytical philosophy are other analytical philosophers, and the practical output of their decades of activity is zero.
>not taking the least shit parts of both and using them
Both sides alone are absolute mental masturbation.
Analytical. Blame Hegel for the most obscure shit i have ever dealt with. I was so many hours busy trying to figure out what he meant by "contradictions."
> he thinks knowledge can be reduced to a set of axioms and that this makes him super clever
> he cannot actually defend his logical axioms on logical grounds and doesnt realize its turtles all the way down
> doesnt realize our abstract notions are distilled from our empirical observations, and that their ability to match those empirical observations is their only purpose and justification
> doesnt realize that nontrivial knowledge always takes the form of a cyclic graph and that he got BTFO by his own picture
>people in the southern hemisphere talking about philosophy
shouldn't you be fishing for walkabouts on the barby
Don't debate erminology. Just define your terms.
If you think banana=apple, we can continue the conversation knowing that you are an idiot and that every time you say banana you mean apple.
Of course, some loaded terms will need to be discussed, but that's because feels-niggers like you love loaded terms.
I love philosophy, but academia isn't what the world needs right now. Nietzsche could solve problems, get over your hatred for him.
>You know as well as I do that these arguments about definitions never lead anywhere.
Not true at all. Can you support this claim at all?
>Whuch is why the only people interested in reading analytical philosophy are other analytical philosophers, and the practical output of their decades of activity is zero.
If you think the entirety of computer science, among other things, is nothing.
Could you substantiate this claim?
Australia has contributed more to philosophy than the United States.
>knowledge
>axioms
>rationalists
K E K
E
K
>Australia has contributed more to philosophy than the United States.
you guys need to get out of that sun