I'm going to major in Philosphy at UCSB. I'm quite interested in all aspects of it, but I have to ask you guys...

I'm going to major in Philosphy at UCSB. I'm quite interested in all aspects of it, but I have to ask you guys, between continental and analytic philosophies, which is genuinely worth it?

Attached: 1423109893693.jpg (666x408, 73K)

Analytic philosophy builds around its dogmas a model of reality made of axioms and connections, that allows a certain vision of the cosmos to sustain and expand itself. Continental philosophy allows you to acknowledge this, and in doing so become a master alchemist

Disregard philosophy and study evolutionary psychology under Leda Cosmides.

Well why would I do that, user?

retard

I assume you're interested in truth? Understanding why we think the things we do is fundamental to that pursuit in my opinion, not to mention evo psych is data based rather than entirely speculative like philosophy. John and Leda are both at SB and they more or less founded the disipline.

These. Evolutionary psych over philosophy any day.

To elaborate further, you can study philosophy anywhere, whereas having access to the founders of an extremely interesting discipline that is currently in vogue is quite rare. Having to understand statistics and data for psych is also an advantage in terms of employment, this is coming from a philosophy grad. Study philosophy too but consider a double major.

Why that nigga on the left look like heihachi lmao?

that's kind of a false dichotomy imo

the "analytic" versus "continental" distinction is mostly a construction of american universities

to answer your question, sinking yourself into student debt to get a degree in something with no real practical value is not worth it monetarily speaking, nor in terms of opportunity cost. If you like philosophy study it in your time.

You go to college for specialized workforce training (i.e. to get a well paying job with your skills). Philosophy gets you neither a job, nor does the mindless essay and publishing cycle really educate you at all.

Both eventually converge in to mysticism. Continental is good if you are looking to slay arthoes. Analytic, or "anglo" philosophy if you want to be real about it, is kind of sad because despite all its cheerleading at the side of the field they still go unnoticed by Chad Quarterback STEM who can't tell it apart from Continental.

A little more seriously, if you are genuinely interested in philosophy then you should be open to both, at least to begin with. The idea of picking a side is less about authentically striving for truth and more about career paths in Academia. If it is not your intention to be a career philosopher then just choose what interests you because picking a side doesn't matter otherwise.

yes but that is boring and as pointless

how to heal the anal/cont divide?

Attached: unity.jpg (800x800, 34K)

Depends. You can go to a prestigious university and study anything and it end up being worth it monetarily. Don't study philosophy at a shit uni, but if you can at Oxford or somewhere than of course it is worth it.

>evo psych is data based
Doubt. Evolutionary psychology is not only speculative, it's also ludicrously reductive, and begins with the unproven and unprovable premise that every aspect of the human mind must have antecedent in some stone age fable.

Continental with Sellars

Sellars is trash. Myth of the given my ass. Not to mention mentored the Churchlands.

Examples?

Philosophy of digits is the only philosophy worth anything

What did he mean by this?

Attached: IMG_E6092.jpg (720x748, 65K)

checked

Attached: checked.jpg (512x512, 16K)

witnessed

Attached: 1560194560743.jpg (720x720, 30K)

>begins with the unproven and unprovable premise that every aspect of the human mind must have antecedent in some stone age fable
Patently wrong. Evo psych doesn't argue that all aspects of mind are adaptations at all. But some obviously are, we are the product of evolution after all. Evo psych doesn't tell just so stories as so many claim either, their arguments are often based on cross cultural DATA as this is good evidence that certain psychological traits are common to all peoples and thus tied directly to our nature.

please explain more.

UCSB? The only thing worth majoring in there is pussy, or maybe marine biology. Seriously, why would you go to UCSB for any reason other than smashing prime slutty pus and crashing house parties in Isla Vista? Are you a fag or something? I used to drive down to SB every Halloween to fuck drunk 19 year olds.

Attached: haha YES.png (670x634, 473K)

>faggot thinks unfalsifiable EvoPsych has anything to do with truth
The linguists and neurologists were decades ahead of you guys, stop pretending an internet meme from 2010 is still relevant.

Based and digitpilled

Attached: 1566505184370.png (736x544, 540K)

>ANALytic philosophy
anglos are retarded faggots and should be disregarded

this had to be intentionally set up

holy shit

Attached: girl-amazed-pizza-slice-shocked-1388866597e.jpg (600x450, 40K)

mathematical platonism wins again

Attached: 1562594286274.gif (700x488, 3.83M)

>136 is divisible by 8
It get's deeper

Attached: sdfs.jpg (398x398, 25K)

There is some evo psych now that is statistics based but it doesn't bear that much relation to psychology in a number of ways.

>136/8=17
>1 + 7 = 8
O M E

all peoples are not the same and indicators of samness are just indicators of the scientist's procrustean bed

In the most basic terms possible I would say analytic philosophy is mainly concerned with logic while continental philosophy is mainly concerned with value.

Ah, I see. Thanks user. I suppose I'll stick around the analytic path, then, since I'd like to go to Law School. Logical application might do me best than other stuff.

Probably not actually, since laws are created by humans based on value systems they subscribe to. Just read both

>I'm going to major in Philosphy at UCSB

Pizza hut next?

That user was pretty clear, analytic philosophers will believe anything as long as you can make up some bullshit truth table.

>all peoples are not the same
Obviously you absolute moron. Do you really think psychologists would deny the existence of individual differences? It's an entire field of study.
>and indicators of samness are just indicators of the scientist's procrustean bed
You're an idiot. Have you heard of the notion of commonality? The knowledge that standards of beauty are universal across cultures, for example, is fascinating and useful because it refutes purely social constructionist arguments. Commonality implies adaptation. Or do you want to argue against evolution too like the brainlet you are?

start with Peirce
this. stay away from IV. I went for marine bio but ended up dropping out. there is really no point going out during holidays because of all of the people like you that drive in.

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. TEACH ME ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF DIGITS.

Philosophy as a field is an insufferable mental wank. Its not marketable, and theres honestly not a lot that you'll learn in a humanities classroom that you wont pick up on reading /pol/ threads or watching YouTube videos and I mean that as sincerely as humanly possible.

t. Have a masters in psychology and a bachelors in philosophy and history. Went to grad school so I wouldnt be doomed to pour coffee forever

you will find out after your first year and if you ask some of your professors for their opinions (don't necessarily believe them, however)

Weak bait.

Let me show you..

The ONLY good advice in this clusterfuck thread. You won't know what you like until you have a sip of every cup of tea.

but you speak our language, cucked bitch

Hail KEK

KEKEKEKEKEKEKEK