Why are analytic philosophers so autistic?

Why are analytic philosophers so autistic?

Attached: ED7BbZJUEAArySV.jpg (1200x900, 214K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism
youtu.be/bZe5J8SVCYQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Huh, this must be some college student's essay for her cla--

>Canadian Journal of Philosophy Volume VI

oh

This reads like baby’s first day reading Wittgenstein

I will never stop being baffled by analytic philosophers, specifically how they double and triple and quadruple down on their naive linguistic realism instead of just fucking realizing how misguided it is, whenever it's called into question. The kind of naive realism that logicists had in Frege's time is already confusing to me, because how could a grown man fail to anticipate the nominalist critique of his own position? Nominalism occurs in every age and in every place for a reason. It's like the second step you take after trying to think about the nature of entities in their permanence or fixity. A child can come up with the nominalist critique.

It should be the case that nobody in the history of humanity, other than completely naive and unconscious housewives who had simply never thought about the issue deliberately, could ever fall into the trap of naive realism. Falling into the manifest paradoxes of naive realism is exactly the initial frustration that generates the position of nominalism in the first place, because any thinking human being goes "hmmm but wait, does the name remain when the thing is gone? What about things in flux, are they stable? What is a stable thing? Who gives things their names anyway? Haha this is fun, I'm doing philosophy." And yet here is analytic philosophy, an entire school of thought dedicated to doubling down and then doubling down again, over and over again, on the retardation of naive realism.

You try to pound it out of them and they spend 20 years writing a systematic multi-volume question-begging nightmare building theories on theories about how names describe stable platonic entities, when the whole question in the first place was HOW this takes place and how the temporally bound subject knows it in the first place. You try to show their logic leads to worse and worse paradoxes the deeper they go into it, and they turn the paradoxes into a virtue and say that everybody else is being paradoxical. You invent a whole school of "therapeutic" philosophy to gentle guide them out of their ultra-reified meta-systematized naive realism after three generations of it, and half of them go "Great idea! Thanks for teaching me that logic can't transparently disclose ideal platonic entities while also somehow being anti-metaphysical! From now on, I'll ONLY hypostatize platonic idealist Speech Acts across Possible Worlds by typologizing them without any metaphysical justification for my typologies (while also claiming to be anti-metaphysical)!" and the other half of them assert neo-naive ULTRA-REALISM, EXTREME HARDCORE EDITION where Socrates simply IS Socrates because he fucking IS, okay? And then spend 50 straight years bearing out the conclusions of a nonsensical starting point and wasting the lives and careers of hundreds more epigones who for some reason want to write articles rehashing the trivial linguistic mix-ups already implicit in the casual eristic chitchat of two sophists visiting Thebes in 451BC.

didn't you know that modern philosophy is linguistics and psychology now?

the lankavatara sutra has a section dedicated to these types of people and even the people you would think not be under scrutiny

tl;dr lol are you an analytic by chance?

As an analytical philosopher, I'd like to know what you mean, but it's really strange that you use the term "naive realism." I want you to define how you used the word "naive realism".
Like, you currently used "naive realism" as
A. an opposition to the Nominalism, so this is an subject on problem of universal and Realism, but it actually used as quite different word. It is not entirely same; I can give some counterexample such as "Intuitionism in mathematics and Intuitionism in Ethics is different", although it is little too much.
B. an opposition to entire school of thought of analytical philosophy. I can only say this is a Slander. Because you didn't provide any argument. you just seem to accept analytical philosophy as part of linguistic philosophy, but this is really not acceptable since the quine came on; you can see such as Naturalizing epistemology doing big connection to the neuroscience(giving an alternative to transcendental apperception), metaphysical interpretation that has resurrected since Kripke, even there is Sellars' attempt to escape from Cartesianism scattered in philosophy (e.g. myth of the Given).
The strangest thing is that a LOT of people in analytic philosophy is very nominalistic; There is quite a lot of talk about occam in Tractatus, Carnap was definitely nominalist, Sellars supplemented nominalism, In fact, I think it is problematic that nominalism is more prominent than realism in analytic philosophy.
Third, I just cannot explain why you think "therapeutic" philosophy is some type of naive realism. I mean, Let's just exclude Wittgenstein because they misinterpreted him, then we have ordinary language philosopher. although there is "naivety" in there, But they are by no means realists. It's like calling Frankfurt school anti-reason because they are opposed to manifestation of rising on instrumental reason. It is completely different thing to do.

When Wittgenstein said that old philosophy was a pseudo-problem created entirely by philosophical confusion, He was referring to these sentences.
I had expected analytical philosophers to be blamed for separating concepts like "realism" into another too many concepts. Because sometimes it's really tedious. But I get the why they doing this; they realized that abusing words that were not well defined would not give any philosophical implication at all.

not autistic, user, that's too good. they're retarded, literally the worst "philosophers" ever and any healthy society would be executing anyone who thinks like them

shut up pussy, go do some pushups and read poetry. stop being a faggot

also no, linguistics isn't half as retarded as analytic philosophy

>linguistics isn't half as retarded as analytic philosophy
Give me some good examples.

try panini, the true father of linguistics ;)

Want to share some?

Attached: 1427837179366.jpg (826x620, 60K)

Analytic "philosophy" is pure autistic masturbation.

I have no idea how analytic philosophy continues to be when it reveals time and time again that it has nothing to say. It's not a case of missing the forest for the trees, it's more like they miss the trees for the leaves. When people say philosophy is dead they are completely fucking right from the standpoint of anglo universities. The whole field needs to be dissolved so that real philosophers can take their few insights and actually do something with them.

I don't see much better coming out of continental. It's whole a cottage industry of dazzling midwits with baroqueness.

Continental philosophy at least has the possibility of greatness

oh hey thanks bro *takes a bite* *crunch crunch crunch* mmh yeah bro that's the stuff *crunch crunch crunch* *gulp* *crunch crunch* crunch* *gulp* damn that was good, wish i could have some more... actually, can I? *takes it from your hand* thanks bro, fuck i'm starving ahah *crunch crunch crunch* daaaamn that's good, did you make this? *crunch crunch* *gulp* *crunch* *gulp* this is amazing. *gulp* was that all you had? damn i'm sorry bro, did i eat your lunch? sorry bro, wasn't my intention. fuck i was starving, much better now. anyway, gotta go, smell ya later bro!

based btfo out of the pseud conty poster lmao

Well linguistics is a slightly more respectable.
Maybe linguistics will help SIRI recognize voices and make microsoft SAM sound more realistic.But thats about it.

it's very hard to read your english, user.

Because the Well of philosophy is dried up, no water remains untill the next Great paradigm shift. Untill Then only autism remains.

I don't know if it is fair but holy fuckdamn is it good pasta.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism
Are you an idealist? Lmao what is paradoxical about accepting that our senses can directly give us an idea about what is materially there?

I plan on trolling academia like this for the rest of my life, eating baked beans and living in my car

you idiot, its being on the spectrum that gives them analytic powers

you fucking IDIOT!!! you piece of stupid fucking human shit!

you Autistic friendless cunt, must be American filth

>analytic powers
nice

based hungryposter

What is this cunt even trying to say?
That it doesnt matter if his name was really Aristotle because we refer to him by that name?

Isn't Butler's work in large chucks about the theory of language (analytic) and quote insightful (you don't have to be a feminist to agree) and certainly impactful?

Attached: euphoria-sydney-sweeney.jpg (2024x3000, 923K)

theory of language isn't de facto analytic -- semiotics is pretty much an entirely continental concern

I'd impact her for sure

Butler is a nominalist and her work is not insightful. It is only instrumentally useful for sociologists who seek some philosophical justification for their political convictions. In fact I would say her philosophical work is below average and ultimately self-contradictory, as is Butler herself. I want to remind you of the incident where she voiced support for Hamas a a liberating force, and backpedaled by claiming her statements were merely descriptive, not performative.

>implying Hamas is not a liberating force

normies cannot fathom the depths to which the analytic tradition has delved. we have uprooted space and time, demystified the self, undermined god, and anatomized meaning. we basically solved philosophy.

Attached: 1565572054479.jpg (1280x981, 992K)

And what did we get? Scientific naturalism.

Attached: 1450033B000005DC-0-image-a-8_1439656256491.jpg (634x490, 66K)

Can someone please turn this into a copypasta?

Attached: bestabstract.jpg (640x399, 46K)

I mean sure one day there might be a good one after Heidegger but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Attached: Graham_Harman_at_MACBA.jpg (640x620, 28K)

That's what the clueless masses got, not the initiated.

I have a subscription to this journal and a lot of it is pretty much this

Why so mad?

didn´t this guy BTFO zizek?

She's trying to be a new Nagel and failing, leave her be.

Pretty sure he just made Community and Rick & Morty.

I thought his name was Aristotles.

youtu.be/bZe5J8SVCYQ

Heidegger is frankly overrated. Ultimately he's not much better than a Nietzsche without aestheticism, or a Kierkegaard with much less honesty. The best French postmodernist are roughly on his level, though they're not great. Habermas sounds interesting but not sure how big he really is. Sloterdjik sound like he could be fun, but is he above being just that? Not sure about speculative metaphysics either.

Most likely someone will have to take a huge leap over the gap that sets continentals and analytics apart (and not just in a "guys over there are not so bad after all"way, but with an actual synthesis).

better than GR

>Most likely someone will have to take a huge leap over the gap that sets continentals and analytics apart
And just as I write that I notice another phil thread that mention a guy who apparently is working on that I suppose philosophy at any given time is richer than one suspects.

I will strongly disagree, although I will say that Nietzsche covers a lot more than some give him credit for, and Heidegger's Nietzsche is a bit shit although not without his merits.

I was being very expeditive with my take on Heidegger here, but let's say my terms apply more to the value of his philosophy than its content. Heidegger is no rehash of Nietsche but ultimately he doesn't escape Nietzsche's pitfalls despite his explicit attempt to do so. And he's been used by way too wide an array of people considering what his own philosphy would actually tolerate.
He's a more limited philosopher than he appears imo, even if his take on metaphysics must be recognized as pretty unique.

I agree that Nietzsche is often underrated (if overdiscussed), he's broader and more subtle than often taken to be.

>even if his take on metaphysics must be recognized as pretty unique.
I'll agree that he peaked early, at some point I need to go over his later work but eh. I think DFW would have been something similar had he pursued philosophy (or I guess mathematical philosophy), his dissertation was interesting in a similar sort of way.

>Most likely someone will have to take a huge leap over the gap that sets continentals and analytics apart
Also didn't comment first time, but I'm very interested in this. It does seem to me that the more out there philosophers in both ""camps"" tackle similar problems and with not completely dissimilar/incompatible outcomes.

Didn't Badiou try this?

based "based hungryposter" poster