Who are the best analytical philosophers, Yea Forums?

Who are the best analytical philosophers, Yea Forums?

Attached: Quinewa.jpg (1000x1112, 96K)

Richard Taylor

>le axioms
>le proofs

analytic philosophy is literally a field of failed mathfags in denial. continental is much more fun

Alasdair MacIntyre is the greatest living analytic philosopher, but maybe it's because I hate analystic philosophy and think ethics is the only interesting part of it.

Analytic philosophy is more interesting and studying it feels more productive than continental philosophy (in terms of you feel like you've grasped something, rather than just having an interpretation of something).

Analytic philosophy is most powerful when (dis)solving philosophical problems by exposing linguistic fallacies. However, this requires a close philological understanding of the original problem, which Yea Forums does not possess. Thus it is no wonder that they do not appreciate analytic philosophy.

Analytic philosophy is clearer, more rigorous, and better with math and science, but only does a slightly better job of avoiding magical categories, language confusions, and non-natural hypotheses. Moreover, its central tool is intuition, and this displays a near-total ignorance of how brains work.

Daily reminder that Kaczynski was Quine’s top student.

1. Gottlob Frege
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein
3. Bertrand Russell
4. W.V.O. Quine
5. Rudolf Carnap
6. Saul Kripke
7. David K. Lewis
8. John Rawls
9. Hilary Putnam
10. Derek Parfit
11. G.E. Moore
12. Alfred Tarski
13. Donald Davidson
14. Bernard Williams
15. J.L. Austin
16. Karl Popper
17. P.F. Strawson
18. Thomas Kuhn
19. Noam Chomsky
20. Thomas Nagel

constraining philosophical questions to a set of logical propositions is inherently reductionist and doesn't capture many things that are actually interesting for us as beings that exist

for instance, Heidegger's ontology of being and time, authenticity, revealing, are extremely close to my own (and many other persons') experience of being. however, these ideas do not translate easily into an analytical framework, and therefore are completely ignored as "tautology" or worse, as "continental bs"

thus, I never understood the world or myself better after reading analytical stuff - it never resonated with me or my experience. however, reading continental philosophers is a more rewarding experience. their language with all its obscurity and mystery somehow reveals existence and the world to me better than anything else

Chris bond and generative anthropology turned me into him. Seems interesting.

So you don't want to argue about counterfactuals and indexicals, user? Doesn't debating whether contextualism or invariantism with a plurality of speech acts enrich your soul? Shame on you for thinking modal semantics is useless.

Then what would you consider Christian theologians and philosophers (and I don't mean Kierkegaard, I mean more like Karl Rahner, Edith Stein, and the like).

I get it if the style turns you off, but there's two ways analytic philosophy is done, and they should appeal to the two kinds of anti-analytics out there. It really seems to be the style and the reputation given it by critics that puts people off, unfortunately. The two kinds of anti-analytics are either pro-metaphysics (people who love Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, Whitehead) or pro-systematicity at least (Hume, Kant, if you don't want to consider them metaphysicians), or anti-metaphysics and anti-systematicity (people who like Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, and if they know one analytic they like it's probably Wittgenstein). The best way to get into analytic philosophy if you're the first kind is to read some analytic metaphysics. Pick a topic you like (for example, philosophy of time), and look into some of the classics. I still think David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds is worth reading regardless of topics you're interested in, because despite being mainly about modality, it covers a lot of other ground, and Lewis is good at introducing other topics and listing various views besides his own. Meanwhile, if you're the second kind, Richard Rorty already did a lot of the work for you. He's done a lot to demonstrate that many analytics are actually saying the same as continentals. So you can take his lead and study some Quine, Sellars, Davidson, Goodman, etc. Honestly the MAIN problem with analytic philosophy is how scattered and big all of it is. If one person wrote down all the metaphysics, or if one person wrote down all the anti-metaphysics, as comprehensive systems, and toned down the style to be more literary than formal-symbolic, Yea Forums would actually love it.

It enriches me, whenever a rad-lib is arguing for non-essentialism or social constructivism I can pull apart the arguments with cold hard autistism.

You could do the same using continentals like Bruno Latour but why make it easy for them.

I’ve read plenty of analytic shit. I’ve read Quine, Davidson, Recanatti, Soames, Williamson, Cappelen, Lepore, Bramdon, Kripke, Putnam, Gettier, Fodor, Hintikka, Haack, Dummett, Waismann, Carnap, Schlick, Frege, Russell, Moore, Austin, Ryle, Strawson, Searle, the whole shit. I honestly regret getting into this crap. The amount of intellectual dishonesty and aridness coming from these guys is astounding. No wonder Wittgenstein thought philosophy was a dead end.

>fun
kys

>Alasdair MacIntyre
How can I even dream of competing with someone with a name as fancy as that?

i like anal too

I don't think it's intellectual dishonesty, moreso that the standards to consider an issue resolved are too high.

Look at the rule following paradox. Way too many positions with slight degrees of nuance between them. It can seem like a lot of intellectual effort wasted.

I simply took the Witty pill and was baffled to see the amount of unwarranted assumptions and stupid esoteric discussions they get into just because of the retarded assumptions. Whenever I read a paper on epistemology or paper #5345345 on a Gettier problem, I just want to kill myself. When they start talking about counterfactuals, I want to kill myself. I should never have read Philosophical Investigations. Hey, at least now I can read continental shit freely, like one reads poetry.

The rule following paradox is exactly the kind of stupidity to come out of analytic philosophy. When I read Kripke's take on it I was baffled but how retarded this man's (who's a mathematical genius, by any definition of the term) interpretation of Witty was. It was like seeing a car crash happen in real time.

I find analytic philosophy valuable in some respects but not others. I read an analytic book about physicalism and one about properties. They were amongst the most rewarding books I've read and I've read Being and Time, the critique of pure reason and Aristotle's metaphysics to name a few.