PHILOSOPHY GENERAL

Daily reminder than continental philosophy is not philosophy.

So only real and serious philosophy here, please.

Other urls found in this thread:

home.mira.net/~andy/works/heidegger-review.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy#Political_philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_anxiety_(psychology)
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This thread already sucks. Great job ruining a potentially great thread, OP.

...

The picture inspired me to post this:
home.mira.net/~andy/works/heidegger-review.htm
Heidegger and the Philosophy of Property by Andy Blunden

According to Zizek John Searle is an pro-imperialist conservative, point invalidated

anyways heres an pdf I scanned some time ago if anyone wants it, sorry for the bad quality

dropped

Alfred Korzybski is one of those rare analyticals that are capable of meta-analysis.

top tier reasoning there, bro

point nonexistent

I'm sorry bro, it's just that i find Zizek boring and doesn't have really anything interesting to say. His analysis are wikipedia tier imo.

so much reasoning much wow

Liiiiike?

like this

t. expert

such wise

I'm literally quoting one the most important living philosophers

so yes

t. expert

Yeah, she's shit, but so is Kant for the most part. I don't think a certain philosopher being garbage is a statement on the value of the style itself, because continental philosophy also hosts people like Heidegger and Sartre.


I don't care if Searle is uncomfortable with deconstruction. Sure, there's valueless and unfounded deconstruction, but having a blanket phobia of it is retarded.

ongoing debate in analytical

nazi


is not a blanket phobia

is a rejection of un systematic, un methodological, and un rigorous analysis

is just common sense

end your love affair with positivism and look around you. continentals are said to be out of touch with reality and yet analytics believe even socio-political issues can be addressed through treating language like a math. humans are irrational good luck

What does Heidegger throwing shade on Sartre have to do with anything? I know Sartre got contradictory later in his life, but "Being and Nothingness" is fine. Sartre knows Heidiegger didn't like him, which is why he criticizes him in his aforementioned book.

what the fuck is this real

Searle is just salty because Derrida made a mockery of him in their exchange.

it's clearly a facebook shitpost

Yeah, I know all about Heidegger's slap fight with Sartre, and I agree with Heidegger that Sartre shouldn't have been trying to divorce himself from metaphysics because it was clearly an interest of his. As for the rest of that "criticism", it just seems like a matter of difference of taste. Sartre asserts that life is fundamentally meaningless (it is) and that an understanding of meaninglessness invites angst (it does), and I fail to see the point of a criticism essentially saying "but we don't haaaave to feel angst or believe life is meaningless". It's fluff that entirely misses the point of Sartre's assertion.

*prepares for precise and unequivocal destruction of your argument*
No, it isn't. Phew! That was difficult.

there is some truth in it. if you understand the methodology used in analytical and the way they approach arguments

Also, Heidegger rejected Nazism later on in his life and basically acknowledged that he was retarded for getting caught up in the zeitgeist. What more do you want from him?

Analytics are just failed scientists and mathematicians who are too dumb to understand thinkers like Derrida or Lacan, similar to how economists are failed scientists and mathematicians who are too dumb to understand Marx.

If you get teleported, do you die?

It would be extremely painful.

you that analyticals know that humans act in irrational way right?

they just try to not always act irrationally

as a funny trivia


[citation needed]

this is precisely mentioned in the quote

they presupose that all human live in a state of despair and angst and meaningless over their life

and this is not true
or at least you cannot prove it empirically

lmao

Great but what I'm saying is that formal logic and systems of thought that resemble mathematical calculations will always fail when they attempt to address socio-political-economic issues no matter how 'sound' their arguments become. I see analytics usefulness only in being a slave to their lord science where they attempt to clearly articulate the depth-less assertions made following from scientific discoveries. I'm perfectly fine with them indulgently precising their statements about what they encounter through their reductionist manipulation and abstraction of nature, but I can't see their usefulness in politics which is what I am concerned with.

misunderstood him >but I can't see their usefulness in politics which is what I am concerned with.

you seriously need to now more about analytic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy#Political_philosophy philosophy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_anxiety_(psychology)
Do I need to give you fifty sources telling you people are afraid of death?

Also, I didn't say common sense doesn't exist. I said that your assertion that deconstruction is invalid is not common sense. It's also untrue in general, but whatever.

Wat

I know analytical political philosophy exists and I am glad marxists hold a presence in that field. however, just because of their 'analytical' nature i will not hold them with a higher regard I also remain skeptical with the use of rational choice theory in analysis

GA Cohen is the only analytic worth reading. Maybe MacIntyre too.

Why are analytics so utterly afraid of any theoretical work that actually attempts to bring philosophy beyond their own sterile abstractions with "common sense" "defined" terminology.

Is it because it by it's very existence undermines their entire legitimacy?

I Never said that death anxiety didn-t exist

I said that to imply that death anxiety or something similar is something universal and it happens to absolutely everyone is [citation needed]

even marcuse which he was a conty himself was against this point of view

that's why i quoted one the most important philosopher alive to tell you that deconstruction is indeed shit


why are you so against rationality?

that doesn't make sense


no

it is because that is the only way when philosophy can actually mean something
and the only way where words can have the most possible clarity

So then you don't think the human inclination to avoid death is… a thing or..? Because I can promise you that the entire reason existentialist philosophers focus a lot of effort on the subject of angst has specifically to do with the innate human avoidance of death and the negative feelings associated with it. People don't want to die, other than some suicide cases. I'm… not sure what else I can tell you on that front.

Oh, and I reject appeals to authority and I don't think Searle is right about everything. The fact that he rejects deconstruction is not a concern of mine.

i'm against hyper-rationality. true rationality exists only in understanding its limits. the most illogical are those that don't realize this. what ultimately came from the rise in significance scientism/positivism in the 19th century? WWI. it's dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket to the point of infallibility

is nice that you mentions suicide
this already disprove your idea of total death anxiety

also is not what "I" think
that's why i mentioned searle and marcuse

marcuse already explained his disregard to existentialism

and also existentialism is not simply death anxiety is also despair, angst about living because of a allegedly meaningless life

a lot people don't consider life as meaningless

also the fact that most people don't want to die is not prove of death anxiety


a lot of people don't want to die for other reason for example because they want to be alive
they want to continue enjoying life
this doesn't mean they have an aversion to dying


nonsense

what ultimately came from the rise in significance postmodernism/continentals in the 20th century? WWII

see: heidegger/nietszche

i can make nonsense claim too


and this is exactly what you are doing

rationalism is not an absolute
it can rationalize itself
is an ongoing process

irrationality on the other hand can't

correct this is the most rational thing you've said. and to clarify I am not against rationality in fact i enjoy it quite a bit for it's, ya know, pretty darn useful but I am against the idea that something can only be seen as rational if it passes through a filter of logical positivism. skillful analytical philosophers are those that don't fall into this nonsense where formal logic becomes their god and thus their 'truths' are truer than those drawn from dialectics

No, mate. That's kinda why I made the distinction.
Death anxiety arises from an abnormal persistence of the fear of death. The entire reason it is able to manifest in humans is because we are, for biological reasons, already afraid of death. The "distinction" you think you are making is the opposite side of the same coin. People use their pursuits and beliefs to stave off the fear of death. It's a very common phenomenon in fact that in the face of morbid thought, people will reinforce their beliefs and cultural biases. (Look up terror management theory.) Existentialism doesn't posit that the avoidance of death is more powerful than a desire to live, but instead states long-form the essence of terror management. In realizing that we must die eventually, we feel pressured to live more immediately or succumb to anxiety. It's not a revolutionary statement and it's relatively common in modern psychology.

Sticking to your rigid hatred of deconstructionism is bizarre because it doesn't actually have anything to do with the value of that tool. For instance, mereological nihilism is valuable in that it cuts through the imprecise nonsense "theories" of composite objects that rely entirely on the readers suspension of skepticism in order to qualify. Yet it deconstructs the common idea of composite objects. Doesn't make it wrong; just makes it uncomfortable.

Except he didn't, he was completely unapologetic and that is why it is still valid to point out.

MacIntyre isn't even an analytic, he's more of a neo-Aristotelian. Love the guy though, teleology is back bby.

I don't really get all the hate against continentals. I'm not a fan of analytics but I don't hate the branch and try to shit all over it whenever I can.
The biggest criticism seems to just that its irrational and therefore baseless. Which is wrong in two ways, it presupposes a limited form of rationality and uses only that to value its worth. Its essentially just begging the question that is often followed by immature gloating.
Secondly, how can you say that continental philosophy doesn't have a rational system for observation? Both schools have their valid methods of investigation and work forward from there onto their respective subject for study.
The real criticism seems to come down to criticizing philosophers investigating the human experience through experience. Have any of you critical analytics even picked up a book by a continental philosopher?
I hate to sound insulting but your claims are pretty weak, if not completely groundless, and is the kind of autism I have come to expect from pseudo 'analytic philosophers.'

Heidegger is a controversial figure, largely for his affiliation with Nazism, as Rector of the University of Freiburg for 11 months prior to his resignation in April 1934, for which he neither apologized nor publicly expressed regret,[17] although in private he called it "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[18] ( Quoted by Heinrich Wiegand Petzet, Auf einen Stern zugehen. Begegnungen und Gespräche mit Martin Heidegger 1929-1976, 1983 p. 43, and also by Frédéric de Towarnicki, A la rencontre de Heidegger. Souvenirs d'un messager de la Forêt-Noire, Gallimard-Arcades p. 125)

Except he did. Just not publicly.

stopped reading there

also


its the same retard that was arguing in the other thread, can't belive you are still butthurt

As such an influential public figure, it was his duty to renounce the regime, especially after the exposure of the camps.

that pic is fucking with me

Nice backtracking, sperglord.

And anyway, I'm not saying he wasn't a shitbag at one point, but he obviously figured it out, and his philosophy stands on its own merit.

I don't disagree that his work is brilliant nor extremely important, I just think that such severe character flaws should considered in an understanding of his work.
I didn't mean to backtrack but you're right. I hadn't actually known he did renounce it, what I've read and heard about his life seemed to imply otherwise.

and where the fuck do you get that these people are mentally ill?

because it doesn't fit your agenda? lmao

maybe because it doesn't?

using psychoanalysis or other pseudoscience is not a rational system for observation


do you mean investigating human irrationality trough irrationality?

lmao

fite me

No idea how you people can bother reading philosophy, so utterly boring.

t. Autism Level 89

I like reading history, theology, political theory. But philosophy isn't my thing.

how can you read theology without philosophy?

I wrote a thing about Innate moral ideas and a parallel to Chomsky's universal grammar. Thoughts? Be brutal. I already handed it in. Not anything I can do now about the quality.

What do you think Alain Badiou's philosophy is?

REQUIRED READING
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

Incorrect. When that kind of analysis fails it is because the world has not been modeled to a sufficient degree of accuracy. If you leave out essential details such as the neural structure of each individual human, it's no surprise your "scientific" analysis fails to reach accurate conclusions.

Not even going to read this shitpost

It actually does, plugging your ears and pretending it doesn't exist changes nothing.
You're still trapped within you narrow idea of rationality. These systems you disparage have a rational and methodical basis for their investigations. Furthermore, humans aren't even completely irrational and by that I don't simply mean they have a rational component, that goes without saying. Rather that our 'irrational' emotions are actually extremely rational. If you were to investigate the cause of even the most seemingly irrational spontaneous action, it would certainly have a rational base. Emotions and sensations don't happen without cause nor even an illogical one. Do you believe there can be more than one effect without cause? Do you refuse to accept that there is a subject reality and an 'objective' quasi-metaphsyical one?
Unfortunately, you probably do. You wouldn't irrationally defend analytics as you do if you weren't some autist trying desperately to deny that subjective human experience has meaning and is worth investigating. Your abstract and arbitrary logic systems won't save you from being human you philistine, read a fucking book sometime.

correct and this will never be possible thus that post holds true

another outlet for thought that is not infallible

Nobody denies this.
Some people just take issue with the myriad methodological shortcomings in your quest for insight

how can you even read political theory without philosophy?

it doesn't compute


but that doesn't mean that you have get rid of rationality and welcome irrationality with open arms

it just mean that you have to be the most objective in talking about this issues

contys don't do this

remember to kill yourself

I can't cos muh death anxiety :^)

You're a new guy

For you.

idk, but for whatever reason philosophy is too dry and abstract for me

what kind of theology do you read that is not dry and abstract?

REMINDER IF YOU ARE NOT A NOMINALIST YOU ARE LIVING YOUR LIFE WRONG

so you dont believe in numbers?