Synthesizes the most important thinkers of the 20th century’s works with Hegel and Kant

Why would you bother talking when you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Oh right, analytic philosopher, I forgot.

Continental "philosophy" is literal nonsense.

You got filtered

>Continental philosophy is nonsense, now read this shitty reverse engineered analytic version of Hegel derived from Sellars (who read everything continental under the sun) and pragmatism (founded by James and Peirce who both read everything in German idealism) and similar to Wittgenstein (who was a neo-Kantian and read Being & Time around 1930)

Yeah, because it's like, supposed to be. Because it's impossible to communicate with words or something. Get it? Shit's deep, man.

Hegel is not continental philosophy

I'm sure they all read Lewis Carroll's nonsense verse, too. What matters is what they have written, not what they have read.

If that’s what makes you sleep at night

And what they have written is essentially continental. The history of "analytic philosophy" is the history of the short-lived and mostly stupid Oxford "realism" movement rebelling against a British Hegelianism that had no orthodoxy, and this culture being accelerated by the smugness of Russell, who aided the importation of a lot of recent developments in symbolic logic and philosophy of mathematics, like Couturat, Peano, and Frege after his trips to Europe (especially Italy). The turn of the century race to find a new foundations for mathematics combined with Russell's half-baked popularizations of philosophy created a culture of presuming that philosophy should be defined in terms of logically and conceptually grounding the natural sciences, a continuation of British national pride in the British empiricist tradition.

This overlapped with a similar movement within German neo-Kantianism, Vienna positivism, which Ayer visited in the '30s. Ayer further popularized this view of philosophy, alongside John Wisdom (who abandoned it already by the early '40s), while there was still a vacuum of serious philosophy in England after the collapse of British Idealism.

The whole logical positivist "moment" only lasted a few decades before so-called linguistic philosophy unseated it with a return to what was already commonplace in continental philosophy at the time, linguistic and phenomenological analysis of the meaning and use of concepts as necessarily prior to any use of concepts to construct general philosophical theories. Wittgenstein was just saying elegantly things that were already being said freely on the continent.

By the '50s, English and American philosophers were already rediscovering pragmatism, as well as going off the narrow path established by moron positivists and studying continental philosophy directly. Kuhn was deeply read in continental philosophy and continental philosophy of science (informed by continental philosophy). By the mid '50s and definitely by the '60s, anybody doing serious philosophy was conversant with continental thought. Even thinkers working entirely within English language philosophy like Quine were showing that positivism was always stillborn. Popularizers of "mixed methods" (also known as "actually fucking reading philosophy") like Rorty were already made inevitable by thinkers like Kuhn, Sellars, etc.

It's only after "analytic philosophy" became self-conscious of itself as an embattled "tradition" around this time, and as the rhetorical excesses of philosophy and general French sliminess simultaneously made continental a bad word, that very stupid figures like Kripke start to emerge and you get a renewed emphasis on operating entirely within "the tradition." On how that is a dead end, just read Rorty's pessimistic essay "The Current State of Philosophy in the United States" about the narrowness and provincialism of analytic philosophy by the 1990s.

I accept your admission of defeat.

A for effortposting, but your history is all wrong. And "analytic philosophy" is not limited to logical positivism. It just means philosophy expressed clearly and rigorously. It's the tradition that began with Thales, not Russell or Frege.

Analytic ahistoricism at its finest

History is important to learn about, but philosophy should not be a slave to it any more than science should. Many great historical thinkers were dead wrong about a lot of things.

No one is “continental” until after Husserl. It’s literally just a pejorative for retarded French shit. Wear it like a badge of honor. Or are you under the impression Kant is “continental”?

You're a dumbass if you think Foucault is an important philosopher.

Filtered.

GTFOH

Bro, "continental" is just a mark of the anglo cultural inferiority complex. And the only truly retarded French shit is Derrida, so let's chill the fuck out.

Attached: 1644127153725.gif (570x537, 73.14K)

Brandom, Wittgenstein, Davidson, Quine, who's the fifth?

Sellars

French shit is French shit, continental philosophy is philosophy, analytic philosophy is mostly Brits who refuse to read books along with a few people who escaped that mental prison and did good work like Sellars.

Attached: rorty.png (1092x694, 198.31K)

Attached: 1643249520363.png (1702x1470, 1.08M)

Attached: 1643249581883.png (1712x674, 395.66K)

Attached: 1643249387259.png (1146x776, 456.6K)

>>synthesizes the most important thinkers of the 20th century’s works with Hegel and Kant
all superseded and rendered irrelevant by Guenon (pbuh)

Attached: 1581557491596.png (603x516, 170.18K)

Name some non French continental philosophers who are not Husserl or Heidegger

>badiou
>levinas
>althusser
>ricoeur
>laruelle
>lyotard
>etc., etc.

>hasn’t read brandom
Brandom deeply engages with Guenon before synthesizing his shit too

>Brits who refuse to read books
While it may be the case, in general, that ‘continental’ is used by lazy anglos to avoid reading shit, this board does not reflect that usage. Instead, ‘analytic’ is used by dilettantes and neophytes who studied literature, want to read Nietzsche and Marx and then feel comfortable that they’ve seen what there is to see.

HOLY BASED

Ricoeur definitely doesn't deserve to be on that list, Lyotard and Levinas are alright as well.

Sure, but we're not talking about retards. We're already making a distinction ITT that the French were genuinely bad, not altogether bad but at the bare minimum their style was deliberately obscurantist. Might as well distinguish that 99% of "analytics" are just STEM retards who don't know anything about either continental or analytic philosophy, and 99% of "continentals" are just humanities retards who don't know anything either.

But if we're talking about proper analytic philosophy as practiced by its high level adherents, it has serious problems that could be remedied by more dialogue with the philosophical tradition. Including even the French, who aren't that hard to read, and are worth reading just so you can say "that's it? that wasn't worth all the obscurantism."

If you’re just saying the tippety top of both traditions are worthwhile and could benefit from engagement with the other, sure. This whole thing started because people were shouting that Davidson, Sellars and Quine were retards.

Stengers, Agamben, Marcuse

What's Brandom's major work? A problem with Brandom is that nobody says what his major work is, maybe he doesn't have one put out yet. Are his ideas mostly scattered? McDowell for example has Mind and World, Rorty has Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Anyway, will Brandom really offer much new to someone who already knows Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellars, and Davidson directly? Or even Hegel? Brandom reads Hegel wrong anyway.
Ressentiment won't do you any good. Good continentals read analytic philosophy and take it seriously enough even if they disagree. Are you really better than them?
>the rest of this thread
I really hate how stupid Yea Forums is that they think they're cool and edgy and deep by hating either the entire analytic tradition, or the entire continental tradition. Just read both of them, that's what I do, and you'll be the better man. Certainly better than the Yea Forums pseuds who act like a philosophical tradition has cooties and will give them cooties if they touch it. Don't act like babies and grow up.

Attached: Thales of Miletus.jpg (840x1024, 265.08K)

Nietzsche, Vattimo, Zizek, Harman, Gabriel

US philosophy departments are going to study the shit out of Badiou in the coming decades.

source?

LET'S GO BRANDOM

Pretty much, although it appears that the analytics are the haters here.

The first three insults in this thread were thrown against analytics right from the start. Anyway who cares who started it, point is not to be that way.

bump for interest

Continentals like him because they think an anglo mentioning Hegel will be the killing blow of analytic philosophy, just as they thought Rorty mentioning Derrida would be it thirty years ago.
Guys like this get popular due to continental insecurity, but they don't have much to offer in and of themselves. Analytics will keep on doing their work, and continentals will always prefer their own readings of Hegel and and Derrida. Guys like Brandom and Rorty just get lost in the shuffle over time.

>By the mid '50s and definitely by the '60s, anybody doing serious philosophy was conversant with continental thought.
There is no serious philosophy influenced by Saussure, Nietzsche, or psychoanalysis. The provincialism of the 90s was trying to create a space where serious philosophy could be done rather than just fiercely defending whichever historical cult you've pledged allegiance to. Rorty has already been discarded. His attempts to win fame from the lit crit/cultural studies crowd has already brought him to be abandoned by philosophers on both sides of the divide.

>continental philosophy is philosophy
lol no.... not even close

What strikes me as shocking here is how much flak Russell and Moore get and how Wittgenstein gets a pass from continentals here, when things they hate so much about analytic philosophy comes from the latter. At least Delueze went after the right person when he was whining about it.

>A problem with Brandom is that nobody says what his major work is
Except everyone says "Making It Explicit" is his major work. But nice try.

>What strikes me as shocking here is how much flak Russell and Moore get and how Wittgenstein gets a pass from continentals here
What should shock you is the utter nonsense dreamed up by those circa 1900 who say whatever...

>What should shock you is the utter nonsense dreamed up by those circa 1900 who say whatever...
Russell's work on language, even if it was flawed in and of itself, set a better course for discussing the subject than Saussure did, and Moore's ethical work set the stage for the only serious discussions on the subject to come afterwards.

Agreed.

>Except everyone says "Making It Explicit" is his major work. But nice try.
No nobody I've met really has made it explicit that Making it Explicit is his major work. Cut the sass. Thanks I guess

Except deleuze seemed to only be aware of early wittgenstein

>most important thinkers of the 20th century
>no Whitehead
>no Heidegger
Pleb.