Analytic vs Continental

You think terms like "methodological individualism" and OLP are words people use who never read about philosophy?

Pic is obviously a shitposter from pol.

Yeah, but I don't think Bohr or Einstein were thinking of Lacan/Althusser-tier word salad when they mentioned their admiration of philosophy

"It's more sensible if our analyses line up with our intuitions and the way things seem to us."
"Yeah, no, the truth doesn't have to be comfortable and understanding the truth is the only means by which you can make a logical and justified assessment of existence."

Continental is waaaaay better.

...

Yes, continental for the win! I hate it how math papers always have proof by comfiness. Damn you, analytical philosophers! Did you know that analytical philosophy is also responsible for neoliberal austerity politics? Some homeless guy told me that while going through my trash.

...

you got twisted kiddo

Bruh, pissing into glass vials doesn't make you a scientist.

I have a hard time believing a "student of analytic philosophy" hasn't at least heard of Godel.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Logical_systems

This division is a product of "analyticals". From "continental" standpoint we divide it instead between autists and philosophers.

And? The entirety of formal logic can't be "proven using mathematics and computers." The point's wrong.

philosophy was what we had before we proved materialist realism once and for all
these days it is outdated just like religion

no it's still right

you can believe in formal logic until it gets too complex, and this too complex means really too complex

simply dismissing logic is stupid

"Your assertion that much of what we consider familiar about the universe is abstraction and illusory is baseless and laughable."
"But you're ignoring our recent strides in quant–"
"OBVIOUSLY classical physics is the only valuable system to anything."

That is as bad as saying that ideology itself is outdated. It stems from same pure ideology. The funny thing is that precisely self-assured people like you talk the postmodern language of -ism shopping ("look at me, I'm a materialist realist").

Quantum physics is strange, but it isn't magic.

That is… not my point at all.

Absolutely silly. Most systems of formal logic beyond things like Peano arithmetic are "too complex" by that standard. You're moving the goalpost here anyway: you're now saying "formal logic can be proven for very simple systems using mathematics and computers" which is only to say that the vast majority of what we usually consider "formal logic" (and mathematics) is unproveable in the sense of incomplete. That's not at all the original point, so it's still wrong.

When did I dismiss logic? I said his point was incorrect.

He also plays upon the ambiguity of "proven." Demonstrating a system to be mathematically consistent is not the same as demonstrating it to be true of the world.

You weren't claiming quantum physics ergo post-modernism?

I haven't read that much philosophy but I'll have a crack

Based on what?
nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
And thats just one study. Why couldn't we, with trial and error, verify the claims that people are racist in the hiring process i.e.e prove or disprove white muh privilege?

Not an argument. There were other Critical Theorists that didn't see Jewishism as an essential part of the process.

Can it? So if I plugged a formalua into a computer it will tell me that:
Because that seems to be as about as illuminating as formal logic can get.

And the THOUSANDS of predatory journals that will just about publish anything call the scientific method into question
scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/

I'm pretty sure Derrida is talking about how its difficult for the meaning of the text to translate to the person reading it. It is almost like you've never read Plato or Wittgenstein

Don't know much about him
Not an argument

This I agree with, although psychoanalytics as a field is still probably useful

A) Not true
B) Not an argument

Well it is just one displincine and even most Marxists don't use it or at least don't solely rely on it. He mentions SIX fields of inqury so how is it supposed to compete?
Instantly discarded.

Right. Reading our little aspiring continental philosophers here and on reddit gives me an overdose in second-hand embarrassment. First they say that they hate people being ignorant, than they make grand claims about physics and math without even a high-schooler's grasp of any of that ("Quantum Gödel proved that everything is subjective and caused by my feels!!1")

They aren't even familiar with the history of philosophy and instead repeat the memey twitter version of philosophy a la Dawkins while claiming to debunk him. The current mainstream usage of "rational" is some mixture of logical thinking, empiricism, and apologetics for current western society that is presented as one side, the other side being unbearable pomo obscurantists. (So if I don't like Nato bombing a hundred countries, I must be in favor of Traditional Chinese Medicine or what. If I can't make sense of some guru's one-minute "silent therapy sessions" and say it looks like a scam, I must be pro-imperialism. Bullshit.)

In old philosophy texts, the rationalists were a different bunch from the empirically-minded (understanding the world by thinking long and hard about it versus having the focus on collecting tons of data).

I was the one who made the Godel point, and I majored in math in college.

I never implied that once. Unless you can actually show I'm wrong instead of attacking strawmen, you should stay quiet to avoid embarrassing yourself further.

philosophy major here

can confirm that philosophy is dead and continental is for special snowflakes who prefer feels over reals

>they make grand claims about physics and math without even a high-schooler's grasp of any of that

Have an ö. I wasn't referring to you specifically. Are you a famous continental philosopher? I was thinking about stuff like Lacan's mathemes and Julia Kristeva's wisdom about sexist physics.

Continental

Going back to the original quote:
That seems to imply "here" right now. Also, Lacan isn't exactly little or aspiring (or a philosopher). But if you actually weren't, forget I mentioned it.

What do you think of dropping methodological individualism?

That's referring to the board in general, not just this thread

How's Starbucks treating you?

The appeal of continental philosophy lies in how it presents itself and others:

"Other philosophies pretend to be timeless, they don't really consider themselves with history, and when they do, they project back current society into the past, declaring everything "human nature", and ignoring anything contrary to that common wisdom. With that approach, you end up seeing things as more fixed than they really are. (Which is of course a world view the establishment loves you to have.)

I'm not like the other philosophies. I don't pretend to be perfectly neutral and objective. Other philosophies do that, and in doing so, their viewpoints end up being even more distorted of what's really going on. Other philosophies want to hack everything into tiny separate pieces, they don't see the forest for the trees. I look at the relations, I am interdisciplinary, the big picture, history, I am the jack of all trades."

But when you actually start reading it, the quality of it turns out to be in the range between meh and total horseshit. So why is continental philosophy still held in high regard, after all those threads we had about it here? Because you are all a bunch of mukes who read no books.

pic related is current debates in analytic philosophy

I'm in the same boat - you should be thrown overboard

Taking a Phenomenology class, prof is having us read Horkheimer, Adorno, Gramsci, Marcuse, and Habermas, among others (those are only the really political ones). I can't tell if he's a socialist or just really open minded (iirc he doesn't support revolution).
He told me if I want to be a professor, I should dump the continental tradition cus universities don't tend to hire well in that department.

The first P would win because it isn't fucked up by antialiasing.

Clearly the letter P that isn't rotated, for it is closer to the form of "P-ness"
I'll show myself out

u win ten autismo tokens!

Let's just put continental philosophy within the domain of aesthetics and culture, and leave the rest to actual reasoning that isn't dependent on feelings.

Read Husserl

Where did I state Objectivism as my case, and where does the limitations of human observation imply feels > reals?

...

naturalistic objectivism, or pretty much science as we know it. I assumed thats what you meant by "actual reasoning"
Issue with this is that it assumes only a single line of truth is legitimate in the whole infinite horizon of ways of knowledge. Each line may go on for infinity, but it is still only a single line.
Besides that, science itself is subjective. I won't spell it out cus I have better stuff to do, but I recommend "the vienna lecture" or just read about the crisis of europe.

That's worse than I thought.

Plato's Cave is inescapable, yes, although within the context of self-consistency and accountability for phenomena it would seem that materialist naturalism accounts for the physical realm the best, especially if our own engineering and gathering of data is allowed as a gross demonstration.

The matters of Ontology, Epistemology, Ethics, etc. fall outside the purely physical, yes, but still stand the strongest when pursued without compromising whichever theory of logic it gets built on.

Read Heidegger

i dont get this

Did you fags fail elementary logic and the required 101 level science class? Do you realize that positivism =/= anayltic philosophy

This might surprise you, but unless you're taking a philosophy elementary logic isn't a required class for Americans

Guide to arguing, "continental philosophy style":
1. Make a grandiose claim
2. Get BTFO
3. Say it wasn't meant literally, it was sarcasm, other excuses. Go to 1.

Analytic is the only orthodox doctrine for Marxist.

in my experience in senior-level philosophy university courses, it seems to me that this whole analytic/continental team sport is mostly an internet invention. none of the authors i've read have gotten really engaged in it

Guide to arguing analytical style
1. If such and so then this and that
2. Get an explanation of the parts of the subject matter that you miss
3. say "not an argument"