Analytic Philosophy hate thread

not all truth is knowable

some of these posts are making me wince

why post if you have no fucking idea about the subject you're talking about

See, THIS is what philosophy ought to be. Just mathematics.

Is that an ought claim I just heard? How dare you pontificate on ethics without writing it in symbolic logic!

To learn more about it? You're acting like you have all the answers but its not like you're clarifying or even responding to any of the posts you're talking about. Condescension is retarded and pointless if you're not engaging with whatever it is you're condescending to.

Hey Guys I am considering combining my philosophy degree with another degree, that being Chemistry.
I know it is unusual but while I have great interests in both and the first semesters of Philosophy have been very great but bit too easy, I want to go ahead and add a natural science to it to double major.
I am conflicted between mathematics, since that is what all my peers are doing besides physics, theology or law, but I have no interest in these, and Chemistry since I have been naturally good at it and lab work in general.
You never hear the Philosophy + Chemistry (or Biology) combination for fairly obvious reasons, but if I myself focus my Philosophy degree torwards the analytical I will naturally, through the focus that my university itself has, dive into the logic-analysis of philosophy and theoretical mathematics either way.
I'm possibly making a life choice that will make the next three years very difficult for me, and I need anyones 2 cents on this.

Attached: 15.png (417x445, 301K)

b

Im in Eng. lit and Theology right now its good but idk what my future has in store for me. I was going to switch to major in Philosophy but still I would have no oppurtunitys in the future

Sit tight and wait for those Yang bucks to start rolling in

Analytic Philosophy is the true inheritor of the Socratic project.

you know it to be true

Can somebody please explain in simple terms what analytic philosophy and contintental philosophy mean

Attached: c7c.png (612x491, 106K)

Analytic is numbers, continental is feels.

Can you give me some examples of an analytic philosophical concept vs a continental one

A=A vs. antinatalism

>the more I hear about this sperg lord the more I find out he's the most fucking based dude to have ever existed.
wait till you hear how he treated children

These premises are garbage. Doing it with abstract symbols instead of language doesn't make it any less retarded.

> Knowledge implies truth
Easily shown wrong by example

>All truths are knowable
Shown to be wrong by countless philosophers and based boy Gödel

never heard about this one. I think there's something along those lines on the theaetetus
it's quite obvious that given that p obtains one can't know that he doesn't know that p obtains. but I think this might be replied with Putnam's counterargument to brain_in_a_vat.mp3.

how is it wrong that knowledge implies truth
plus the parradox exactly tries to show how all truths aren't knowable you dipshit

> Tell me the truth about an unknowable truth

Shit argument. It basically shows you cannot know the truth of a predicate and then know that you don't know it at the same time, but that's obvious as the latter implies that you actually don't know it. But it is knowing p&~Kp (the self-reference to one's own knowledge of something as if it were just a factual statement about the world) that makes it contradictory, not p&~Kp itself, and it may well be an unknowable truth. It just goes to show by an absurd conclusion that the model is not at all representative of true knowledge.

How does anybody decipher this stuff? Am I just retarded

Attached: 1460623005667.png (1127x685, 37K)

rigid designator vs. we live in a society

Knowing that an unknowable truth exists (recognizing its existence) and knowing its contents and truth are two completely different things. It's just a deficiency of English to use the same word for wissen and kennen. Was man nicht weiß, kann man noch kennen.

Holy fuck that's based as fuck.

Philosophy can't be mathematics. A problem of logic is, for us, a mathematical problem as any other, and not a philosophical one. You ought to treat philosophy as a way out of the bottle.

Did this guy just respond with the letter ‘b’... what the FUCK IS GOING ON. Has cultural awareness reached that point on here where I am exactly aware of what he has meant by that...??!!! Exactly aware of what he is meaning by this... exactly aware of the word he is saying by that letter... dare I say... based.

How can you know it as truth that this truth is unknowable by design and not just unknown?
And if you know that it is unknowable by design doesn't that make it the truth about this now known truth?

Attached: CnEtYaS.gif (500x500, 205K)

grab some introductory logic textbook, like varzi's outline of logic or something. there are some funnier ways to get into analytic philosophy if you just wanna take it as a hobby. try some stuff from the levels 1 and 2 on this list if you feel like it fuckyeahlogical.tumblr.com/post/128964910533/analytic-philosophy-reading-list-for-the-self
good luck

>Philosophy can't be mathematics
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASHHAHAHASHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Hold on a second WAIT JUST A SECOND LET ME READ THAT ONE WORD AT A TIME

>Philosophy
Okay okay okay
>can’t
Already kind of stupid, but perhaps he is going to raise a good point
>be
WAIT... BE?! philosophy can be whatever it wants, hold on this next one will be g-
>mathematics
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAAHAHHAHASHAHAHHSHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAH

Weiss is Knowing
Kennen ist Recognize

Truth about ≠ Truth of
Gödel has already been mentioned ITT, take his true but unprovable statement. You know that it is true, but you don't know what it says to be true. Such things you may not be able to express in such propositional modal logic, you'd need at least first or second order logic so that you can say there exists an object such that when it is evaluated by some black box it yields a true statement, but for which there exists no expression to parse it into an understandable statement. It's just a deficiency of the framework you're thinking in which does not permit you to contemplate the possibility of such scenarios.

It's the lack of fact
In it's inconsistancy you can't recognize it for being anything but inconsistant. Is the truth about this inconsistancy that it is inconsistant? Maybe for now but there is no fact to define this inconsitancy by and hence there is no solid truth.
> You can't freeze frame an image you have no control over or ability to observe fully.
> You can't claim truth about something unkown without making a false claim about what you don't know being the truth that defines this thing.

Attached: Am_I_Doing_This_right.png (1568x1600, 672K)

(Ǝx) vs. being
(∀x) vs. Being

>1. Suppose K(p & -Kp)
...what?

nvm am an idiot

Continentalfags SEETHING

Attached: 1548087210419.png (666x408, 36K)

Analytics LITERALLY proved the existence of God.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 9.38.48 PM.png (982x606, 110K)

Based on their own definitions, arguments don't start from definitions

>proof
Oh you

thats subjective :^))

It's cute that analytic "philosophers" think they can hide behind a bunch of mathematical concepts and symbols to prove philosophical theories. Those symbols mean nothing outside of pure mathematics.

Attached: 1549669378188.jpg (700x1035, 177K)

>Those symbols mean nothing outside of pure mathematics
Definitely false

...except it is pantheist

Stop chimping out.

how so? what the fuck do these symbols mean to anybody operating outside mathematical theories?

Learn them, retard.

>they mean something only when you operate within mathematical systems

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stop apeing around.

What is this thread, I thought continental philosophy was voodoo witchcraft ?

What? More like the platonic project. The platonic project of being so afraid of death that you abstract away from any semblence of reality and live your life on a high horse

>only people who understand the symbols understand them
>they're meaningless!!

This is why people think Nietzsche is retarded

Attached: Roberts-KurtGodel.jpg (960x720, 127K)

... I expect you go up to semiotics and describing it but
why nietzsche. seriously what does any about this conversation related to nietzsche.
why goedel pic and what does (you) mean by "people think Nietzsche is retarded".

The person I responded to had a picture of neech on his op; I just like this picture of gödel.

Were the rationalists analytic?

no but a lot of analytics are rationalists. I mean...that in itself should tell you all you need to know about the embarrassing tradition of analytic philosophy

Analytics are quite literally autistic. They can’t even justify their own lives and work because answering such questions would necessitate engaging in the realm of the immaterial, unfalsifiable and illogical. Instead they uncritically embrace aporia at the subjects that actually matter to human beings such as society, the individual, history and life. Just look at Analytic “ethics” — “if you accept this arbitrary baseless moral axioms i made up for no particular reason we can all live together in harmony”.
The Postmoderns are ironically far more coherent and consitent.

welp you just outted yourself as entirely ignorant about analytics. Hume, Russell, Witty, and more recently Lewis and Quine are pretty much the patron saints of analytics. So it's traditionally been heavily empiricist. Today is no different. In a survey done in 2009, only 27% of contemporary philosophers said they were rationalists. The survey was done in the anglosphere, so most people were in the analytic tradition.

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

If an ethical axiom actually entailed everyone living together in peace and harmony, that'd be a pretty good reason to accept it. I'm not gonna engage with you on the other stuff because it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

My college is all Catholics and let me tell ya about their clear and distinct perception my man it is the opposite of what you're saying right now, though a lot of the philosophy students are more or less deists buuuut empiricism's great you don't need to make ontological statements when you're doing it though theologians constantly deny this

How do you know empiricism is true?

>more recently lewis and quine
talk about irony. I think it is you who has no idea what an analytics faculty in 2019 is actually like. Though I don't blame you, you actually need to be accepted into a university for that to happen.

I don't; but I decide what I know to be true from various systems of interpretation that rest ultimately on arbitrary things in themselves. My perception is all there is from what I decide to be the case because it's through the senses only from which the world is an extension of myself.

Well I guess I just made ontological statements

ooooh yum hamborgers gotta get some of those cya

Lewis and Quine are more recent than the other people I listed. They are probably the most recent people to have been 'canonized.' I'm a literal grad student at a top 20 pgr program rn.

Not only is this hardly intelligible, but it's also strikes me as awfully idealist. Although I guess some early modern empiricists were also idealists (Berkeley). So power to you.

It's borderline idealist, but I posit noumena to avoid solipsism or dogmatic kinds and types of metaphysics usually taking the form of dissociated impersonal Gods that inconveniently happen to be therio/anthropomorphic.

For example assume 3 dimensionality may exist only in the minds of organisms that happen to exist *as* their 3-dimensional context. Outside that perspective the universe could be very very different, theoretically there are 10 dimensions. In German science is called "Wissenschaft" "Shaft (think of a long narrow tube in the ground) knowledge" I think for this insight.

>They are probably the most recent people to have been 'canonized.'
convenient you completely forgot noam chomsky

If you're willing to posit noumena then just drop the weird idealist stuff and just be a normal realist

Very few people that work in an. phil would think of chomsky as being worthy of being canonized. He's political theory isn't taken that serious, and his linguistics stuff is mostly outside the scope of what's popular in contemporary phil. of lang.

Logic is not mathematics (not necessarily) and also it needs variable substitutions for semantic contents or empirical data, if not that just express a bunch of relations between meaningless shit. Logic is a great thinking tool but pure logic is useless.

Is utterly stupid to think that logic could or will at some point totally replace natural language.

what's your diss. on?

I wouldn't say it's just me and noumena, I think everyone has their own world which they project onto things and it's still tied collectively, but for knowing things it all starts with the senses (not just as a definition as in there are 5 of them, but all that inputs into you, of which you only recognize consciously a small bit)

It makes it easier to explain things like the abyss or god-images or god-experiences because there's higher hopes to come up with something quantitative, the way physics uses energy to explain things rather than, for example heat. As an analogue it would probably be a psychological or maybe libidinal energy for collective motifs like with Levy Bruhl

Attached: self.jpg (1487x2753, 900K)

Attached: self2.jpg (2032x3027, 1.19M)

I'm only in my second year so I haven't even taken my qualifying exams yet, but I work in metaethics and epistemology. I'm particularly interested in debunking arguments having to do with moral realism. But, I think these arguments have ramifications that far outstrip just ethics. So, I'll probably do something with evolutionary debunking arguments and their epistemic ramifications for philosophy at large.

what are the ramifications you see of arguments for non-cognitivism/anto-realism?

>be actual philosopher
>read analytic philosophy
>most uncanny feeling ever
>it almost feels like the reverse, or maybe the inverse (?), of how serious thinking actually works
>instead of following the consequences of arguments, or seeking the underlying grounds of ambiguous meanings generating paradoxical statements, they "bear out" the ambiguity of the terms and "follow" them to some nonsensical consequences
>arrive at some dubiously meaningful statement like "The world cannot both be and not be infinite at the same time!," but proclaimed with all the smugness and certainty that they have refined the premises to non-ambiguity
>then they slot the nonsense consequences into some logical lattice-work of symbols, where they are smushed up against other vague statements built from ambiguous premises
>then they claim to "resolve" the original paradox with some bizarre new statement like "The world is the set of all things that are"
>then they translate it all back into a position that was said simply and straightforwardly by some late wolffian rationalist in 1765 and nobody gave a shit, like a modified aristotelian realism
>then they argue about stances like these for 50 more years amongst themselves while nobody takes notice

Don't even get me started on analytic ethics. It's the same thing but much worse.

I was talking to a friend recently who is in an analytic department but mostly studies early modern philosophers, so she fortunately had an escape route out of this nonsense. She said she took an Aristotle reading course with mostly analytics (including the professor), and all they would do was break up Aristotle's statements, each in vacuo, into their underlying "logical contents" with zero sensitivity to Aristotle's historical context or the hermeneutic problems of translating from the Greek terms.

Most of Aristotle's statements and conclusions obviously became prima facie absurd, total failures to launch, and nobody had a problem with this. Nobody wondered, "Why would Aristotle say a bunch of disconnected absurdities? Why would people take them seriously for thousands of years?" They just went, thank god we have modal logic now, and we can effortlessly BTFO an ancient philosopher and learn nothing in the process. If you want an example of this, check out Barnes' The Presocratic Philosophers. Read the reviews for it on Amazon first.

I think I understand your question, but if not, just let me know. So, non-cognitivism is just one sort of anti-realism about ethics. Roughly, (sorry if you already know this) it says that moral statements aren't in the business of being true or false like beliefs are, but instead are more like desires or approval/disapproval. So, on its face, evolutionary debunking arguments don't pose a problem at all for the non-cognitivist. EDAs only apply to realists. But for reasons that I can spell out, I don't think that EDAs are ultimately problematic for realists.

Yeah, this reads like you think 'analytic' departments are full of Carnap disciples. The process that you described isn't really accurate. There's not a lot of people in these departments that think the Tractatus (which you quote) is right about much.

You say you're an "actual" philosopher. What kind of work do you do? Are you a prof?

>non-cognitivism
>anti-realism about ethics
This is pure filth. Analytic philosophy is a joke if this is its product.

In my experience I'd say it's about half Carnap-tier zombies, half limp-dicked late pragmatists who think they're geniuses for figuring out postpositivism and the linguistic turn a century after the Germans did. The latter group is actually worse than the former, because at least the logicians stay in their walled garden and a few of them are probably legitimate mathematicians. In the post you're replying to I had mostly in mind one of the latter types, not even the Carnaps. The ones who think they're pragmatist but whose thought is really ossified by implicit logical atomism.

Recently I had to watch two of them go at it over whether an algorithm whose principles are known (i.e., are a recursive function carried out on an in-principle mechanical device) becomes, ontologically, something "other" than the initial (known) function once its output becomes too complex for any one human mind to comprehend at a glance. Maybe an interesting question in the philosophy of mind, e.g., whether mind is an emergent and metaphysical real property of non-mental or pre-mental processes. But they weren't arguing about that. They were arguing whether a fucking computer running a stock market-monitoring algorithm becomes logically something other than a computer at the moment it is no longer observable by a theoretical human. They made no distinction between logic and and ontology, perception and reality. It was like watching two cats chase each other's tails.

whoops, sorry, i'm a little stone-y and not reading very carefully
if the realist can consistently embrace naturalism/physicalism then i don't see how edas could stand any threat to his position. and i don't even think that's necessary--defaulting to physicalism.
but what's your take?

it's all so much cribbage isn't it? waste of lives

>What kind of work do you do? Are you a prof?
He's not. If what he was saying was true, he'd point us to somewhere online to this alleged course where students break down Aristotle into logic (should be easy for him to do since he knows the department of this alleged friend).

>But what matter, said Charmides, from whom I heard this?
>No matter at all, I replied; for the point is not who said the words, but whether they are true or not.

I know this is bait but it's not even coherent? You think it's a joke that a field has competing views? I'm not an anti-realist or a non-cognitivist, but some people are in my field. You think it's bad people disagree? Your joke doesn't even make sense. They are genuine terms...

Yeah, I hate people trying to answer important questions and considering lots of objections and getting into the details. I wish they would just write cool, esoteric, deep aphorisms that could make me see the bigger picture.

Well it'd be a bit odd to say that the only reason I believe that killing is bad is that believing that is adaptive, or something like that. While, the physicalist can say that, I think anti-realism makes a lot more sense for the physicalist. Again, I'm odd and not representative of what most people think, but I'm not a physicalist. I think evolution is true and all, but I don't think it fully explains why I hold the moral beliefs that I do. If it did, then I don't think I would really know them, even if they did correspond perfectly with the normative facts.

analytic philosophy is amazing

it's more accelerationist than continental philosophy could ever be

pedal to the metal to the next formal framework and breaking up the human experience into widgets for the coming ai gloop god

turing was published originally in the journal analysis for a reason

only people that get buttblasted about it are sociology majors and continentals who only wish they could be as radical as analytic philosophy

Well I was also suspicious, I was just giving him the chance to defend himself. But it seems he's just another troll.

>pic related
this makes the pussy dry.

has analytic philosophy ever had any influence anywhere that wasn't inside analytic philosophy?

and i don't mean analytic philosophers doing math, i mean the actual philosophy part

Attached: cj3z2kdjvryz.jpg (640x853, 48K)

nice bait la

Tfw you've never heard of cognitive science
tfw you've never heard of ai ethics (think self driving cars
tfw you've never heard of bioethics
tfw you've never heard linguistics

I could go on la

Only in this like this poster says By "linguistics" he means Chomsky tier garbage like this:
chomsky.info/20140826/
>In place of a complex rule system or accounts grounded on general notions of “culture” or “communication,” it appears that human language syntax can be defined in an extremely simple way that makes conventional evolutionary explanations much simpler. In this view, human language syntax can be characterized via a single operation that takes exactly two (syntactic) elements a and b and puts them together to form the set {a, b}. We call this basic operation “merge” [1]. The “Strong Minimalist Thesis” (SMT) [6] holds that merge along with a general cognitive requirement for computationally minimal or efficient search suffices to account for much of human language syntax.

Cognitive science is a complete embarrassment philosophically, but even worse than that, no cognitive scientists (shitty as they are) even give a fuck about analytic philosophers. Analytic philosophy is the ultimate cuck of philosophy: first it tried to be the "handmaiden of science" (Locke's famous phrase) in the age of positivism, and actual scientists laughed at it and made fun of it for being irrelevant. Now it's trying to do the same for AI and cognitive science, with the same result.

Short answer: no, no one has ever given a fuck about analytic philosophy. The rare few good analytic philosophers were practically continentals anyway (for instance Sellars).

Peter Wolfendale?

>not accepting the false dichotomy
>not baiting with clearly false drawn lines
It's almost as if you hate getting (you)s

WRONG.

radical centrism is a meme ideology

>no cognitive scientists (shitty as they are) even give a fuck about analytic philosophers.
this is actually true :/

I am certain you are udnerestimating how much a philosophy degree can get you (but you will most likely have to go higher than Bachelor if not phd). Are you in Eruope or in the American system?
unironically this too. I'm dual citizen finishing studies in 0 tuition land hoping to go back to the 21st Century Job Market in the states by 2021.

If a truth can't be known how can it be a truth?

It already is.
Neophilosophy just hasn't arrived from the future.

Wittgenstein Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlungen:
>6.52 Wir fühlen, daß, selbst wenn alle möglichen wissenschaftlichen Fragen beantwortet sind, unsere Lebensprobleme noch gar nicht berührt sind. Freilich bleibt dann eben keine Frage mehr; und eben dies ist die Antwort

>If an ethical axiom actually entailed everyone living together in peace and harmony, that'd be a pretty good reason

Why? Explain.

35% said they were empiricist, and 37.5 answered with “Other.” I think you might be oversimplifying things a bit.

Can confirm actual scientists either ignored or hated 'analytics'. Even in mathematics Poincaré and Hilbert had autistic fits about how terrible the whole Russell and Co thing is.

I don’t know how much that really means. Just because someone can operate well in a field doesn’t mean that they truly understand the field itself. There are many details they can miss.

How many scientists have meaningfully engaged with Foucault’s writing on their field of work? I’m sure everyone in the social sciences has at least dabbled in it, but has anyone in the hard sciences done the same?

Foucault never claimed to work on the magins and help set the framework for scientists, but analytical philosophers have claimed that sort of utility for their field

There are no moral facts (see Mackie, Olson, Kalf, Joyce) so there are no objective answers/solutions to ethical problems, it's just politics.

But the radical nature of Foucalt’s project aimed to do much more than that. It’s failure to make a meaningful impact is far more damning than those merely trying to assist the fields.

The problem with many of the criticisms of the analytics in this thread (especially those of the “all good analytics were actually continentals” retard that shows up in every thread on the subject.) is that they’re infinitely more damning of the continental project. At least they hadn’t internalized every awful aspect of French intellectualism.

Foucalt has had plenty of impact in activist and degenerate circles which seemed to be what interested him, the same can't be said about analytical philosophers on scientific circles

But that’s rather dismissive of the scope of Foucault’s project. Its aims were much broader. I think it would upset him to know that his impact only inspired a bunch of meandering conversation among activists.

I say that as someone who likes Foucault’s work.

the divide is artificial, or maybe illusory; a boundary set up to be spoken on and gestured at, and generative of further articles, and articles on those articles, and on. most academic philosophy is just this referential daisychaining, and that's how it's always been. there's a flash of genius, maybe, and then a series of blinks to hold the negative under the lids for a few more generations, and then--only the vague memory of a brightness, once. how many students of plato's academy are known to us, and for reason? we know they existed, but what of their production? no division, no difference. or only superficially. if we want to stick with the game metaphor: where some play cribbage, or battleship (and cheat!), others play stratego (and cheat!), or maybe bridge.
glad you're having fun, though.

Attached: leenlightenedman.png (500x302, 31K)

The scottish enlightenment. What kind of search for enlightenment is region-specific? The british enlightenment? the german enlightenment? What nonsense!

Holy fuck how can someone be so dense

That’s fucking hilarious lmao, legitimate comedy genius.

Unironically well-written. I like your prose, friendo.

Also, nice trips.

Based. Truly the CryptoDiogenes of our time.

Attached: mythfagsbtfo.jpg (1366x768, 92K)

no
it’s bump, retard

Attached: boom.jpg (2290x1526, 207K)

>Gödel
You have just surrendered your ability to be taken seriously.

No that guy, but in Spanish the verbs conocer and saber both mean to know in English. They are not, however, interchangeable as one is used for things that are in flux (ie people) and the other is used for things that are not as much in flux (Geometry).

The large majority of scientists don’t give a damn about philosophy of science.

Analyfag is upset his delusions have been called out.
Your views are literally incapable of accounting for basic arithmetic, and you still want to impose your framework on discussing the self, God, the world, aesthetics and other topics that, so to speak, fit said framework even less than arithmetic.

but what if what is lies outside of western notions of logic and cannot be expressed in formalized logic form?

Attached: 1510933641450.png (329x286, 190K)

Retard.

He just didn't understand what the argument purported
Aaye where you at?

This week, I had to attend an analytic talk organised by the college's philosophy society. Showing face was mandatory, in my case. It was so eye-wateringly boring that I excused myself, went to the bathroom and masturbated. As I was doing so it occurred to me that Bertrand Russell probably masturbated too, I think to fantasies of destroying Hegel with FACTS and LOGIC, or something similar.

Anyway, when I finished I didn't wash my hands and made sure to offer the lecturer a warm handshake at the talk's climax.

Attached: leopardi.jpg (250x305, 10K)

Shh, we have to let them have hope. Mustn't extinguish those flurried fingers and hasty diatribes before they're properly marinated for the ultimate despair.

They also smell like cigarettes and stale jizz.

Still better than Jordan Peterson, though.