Why does Yea Forums ignore the analytical tradition as well as logical positivism, pragmatism, etc?

Yea Forums is full of delusional continental leftists

Some are worthwhile, such as Scruton, but most are simply not stimulating. They also claim a greater level of objectivity while being suspiciously representative of the Overton Window. Reading Garaudy or Heidegger is far more thought provoking.

Attached: 61296142_10218670375767616_4192368056376229888_n.png (480x477, 341K)

Well Bas van Fraassen is arguably a positivist and he's pretty right about most things.

Scruton is an idiot.

Because it's not as wacky and fun seeming

>but most are simply not stimulating

If you think this, it's unironically because you're too stupid to understand them.

>They also claim a greater level of objectivity while being suspiciously representative of the Overton Window.

Pretty much all philosophy does violence to accepted thinking and discourse, don't know what you're on about

I would not agree, philosophy is commonly produced by and for faculties owned by and owing allegiance to a state or class.

Then the point applies to continental philosophers as well, no?

Yes like Heidegger and the Nazi state he was propping lol. The positivists were socialists and activists.

Yes, it can, it certainly applies to Hegel. It obviously wouldn't apply to Nietzsche or Marx

Heidegger wrote a grear deal both before and after Nazism

yes and like karl popper the shill for CIA niggers and the fascist US government FUCK analyticucks i would fucking strangle the life out of you if i ever met you face to face you fucking neocon

Wtf lol
Yes and the shit he wrote after was way worse both in philosophical merit and ethical-intellectual honesty. The essay on humanism, for example is filled with mystical nazism.

Heidegger's Nazism is pretty evident up until the end, he just thought Hitler went way to far. However after the fall of the Nazis that hardly puts him in the Overton Window

Imagine writing people off as idiots just because they disagree with you about something of which you know you're ignorant but still want the dopamine hit of a (you).

I don't know what you mean by the Overton Window. You think the merits of philosophical discourse is being edgy? I think it's being on the side of wisdom - meaning moral integrity and truth. Heidegger was a lousy philosopher after the war and a morally reprehensible person throughout.

Not moreso than most kuffar

Okay.

This is why we need more pragmatism in the spirit of Dewey. If you and Heidegger were responsible of the world all we'd have is eternal warfare and smelly breaths of men starving themselves.

Me? I'm closer to Maududi than Heidegger

The Vienna Circle had to flee for their lives, and their leader was even murdered.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Schlick#Schlick's_murder

What do you thinking I meant when I said self-deprived men hungry for war? Kys

The Nazis have no where near as much blood on their hands as abortionist progressives desu

the tripfag ITT is blowing smoke up your ass. he doesn't know whereof he speaks
t. phil PhD dropout at Pitt

I'm very critical of contemporary academic philosophy as a sector, the neurotic pressure to produce texts forces students and especially professionals to pump out word salads on an assembly line.

>mfw I'm enrolled at pitt
>undeclared at 22
>I don't really want to go back next semester
>want to do philosophy
I think I will just see what happens during this summer. I'm thinking about taking a long hike with some books.

You can impress art hoes with philosophy? I kept hiding my power level all this fucking time

>Well Bas van Fraassen is arguably a positivist and he's pretty right about most things.

Scientific anti-realism is just as much a metaphysical position about what kinds of entities exist in the world as realism. A logical positivist would just say the question is meaningless.

where do i start anyone got a chart

learn a trade make money then go back for philosophy

Pragmatism is interesting. I have a William James book but otherwise am pretty poorly read on the school. Any reading recommendations friends?

Yeah I guess that's true. He still refuses to talk of all things causality because hes an empiricist. And admittedly I mostly know of his through secondary literature e.g. Hacking who was actually busy criticising Fraassen though left me with a pleasant impression of him. I just don't think the hatred of positivism is very fair.

Depends what you're interested in, and no

Read contemporary pragmatists like Huw Price.

Is this lad representative of the analytic tradition? I like him.

Attached: PVW.jpg (474x710, 28K)

for mundanes only

Art hoes don't read real books

Best living Christian philosopher desu

I've only read his Metaphysics, but I thought it was great.

Yeah I've been told it's weird that I actually read Foucault by arthoes who keep name dropping him

Britain bad

Analytic philosophy doesn't match my personality or outfits, so why would I bother?

Continental philosophy
>What is a tree? Is there an abstract "treeness" like the old Aristotelian etiology or Platonic metaphysics? Or is it just some kind of base set of elements, or "matter," obeying laws? If that's the case, what are the laws? Are they abstracts? What is the non-material ground of matter? Or is matter somehow self-grounding? Even more importantly, how is it even possible for us to be certain in our judgments about any of these things? Can we ever be certain? Can we even know things about the world? Who's to say there isn't a real nature out there, whether it's abstract "treeness" or some kind of base essence of matter and cosmological laws, except it's the nature of consciousness not to be able to know those essences and laws? Are we locked into our experience of the world, which pre-theoretically "makes sense" to us, only to be irritated any time we try to look beyond that pre-theoretical experience and really KNOW things? But how does that make any sense? Surely not everything can be subjective and "social," can it? The basic of the subjective must be the objective; or maybe a unity of the two that is higher than both? Maybe one way to know the "outside" is by better understanding the "inside," since both spring from the same source; yet a lot of philosophers are pessimistic about this, and think we are trapped in language. It's like we're right back where the Greeks started.. How are we to live in a world where we can't even get a firm footing on what it means to "be?"

Analytic philosophy
>◇ ∃p ≡ q{d~p} ∀m ⊢q∥~p ⊃ d p ⊧ ~p ∄ p
>∴ Matter is material.
>Ergo, mid-20th century market liberalism is objectively correct, as is every conception, ca. 1965 in Oxbridge, UK, of the ideas and culture of all past and future civilizations. Read John Rawls and John Locke every day. Ethics was solved by the Bloomsbury circle.

Attached: 8762ffe2.gif (500x281, 1.78M)

Analytic philosophers take seriously all of those questions and offer thoughtful answers to them

Also many analytic philosophers have been socialists

Agreed. The only thing separating analytic and continental philosophy is stylistic.

>What is (you)r preferred flavor of autism?

Attached: 260px-Yin_yang.png (260x260, 6K)

>Analytic philosophy
All bachelors are unmarried
>Continental philosophy
A: We need to put all jews into death camps as an a metaphysical act against eradication
B: Yeah, but what about the Other?
A: As the Great French Thinker Karl Hegel Renè Platostoteles once said the Real Essence of Man is this: Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what youre gonna get.

>hasn't read two dogmas of Empiricism
>thinks there are analytic judgments

^

You really think anyone on this board even knows what those words mean?

The learning curve is higher for analytic philosophy. Most posters here aren't very smart.

i've never seen any proof that he thought Hitler went to far. If anything, he rarely (if ever) addresed the whole issue. I might be wrong though

He resisted Nazis orders to remove any books by Jews from the university, then resigned when he couldn't stop them

Italo disco lives forever.

because you can make up any old bullshit axioms, from which everything else derived. here predictability cannot say anything about the validity of given theory since analytical world and reality are separated.

that's ... not how it works

I was thinking Friedman.

>Friedman’s essay was not an argument against positivism but only one against the more sophisticated logical positivism. Positive evidence still matters for Friedman. His only restriction is to limit the evidence to that of results or predictions and thereby exclude a priori or logical analysis of models, assumptions and theories as a determinant of the usefulness of positive theories. Positive data obviously play an essential role in Friedman’s methodology. But for Friedman the only relevant positive data will be successful predictions which assure the usefulness of one’s model or theory

based microcephalus

Sounds like Quine

pastebin.com/bf5fZE9b

POZitivsm, naturalized epistemology, logical behaviorism etc. are all possible, even necessary one might say, but under just one sneaky condition: liberalism.

Start with Peirce

Lol no it isn't. My conti profs are always the ones who get complaints over reading load.

You've got that backwards. Philosophy makes you better at everything else, including trades; learn from Thales.

What a peculiar post. You seem to have completely inverted the two traditions. Sounds like you haven't read either