Continental vs Analytic philosophy

Yes it does

Apparently "We may experience the grace of another’s movements, or the stubbornness of their attitude" and "we may perceive another's stolidness or joviality in a photo or video as well in first hand encounters" are not subject to how an individual experiences those things personally.

Top kek

Thank you, based OP

...

Yes it does fagget

He is not asking about why do we perceive things in a certain way, he is asking about why we might like things

I bet you defend this now, but then go and call abstract art bullshit and a scam

I thought the distinction was over the style of the arguments. I mean, if someone like Robert Brandom can be considered analytic philosophy then its a pretty wide tradition.

Why would you assume I call is a scam…..

Even as a child I was not this dumb when it came to baby tier philosophical questions.

So who is objectively the best waifu? Can you demonstrate this analytically?

One striking difference with respect to early analytic philosophy was the revival of metaphysical theorizing during the second half of the twentieth century. Philosophers such as David Kellogg Lewis and David Armstrong developed elaborate theories on a range of topics such as universals, causation, possibility and necessity, and abstract objects.

Among the developments that resulted in the revival of metaphysical theorizing were Quine's attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction, which was generally considered to weaken Carnap's distinction between existence questions internal to a framework and those external to it.[44] Important also for the revival of metaphysics was the further development of modal logic, including the work of Saul Kripke, who argued in Naming and Necessity and elsewhere for the existence of essences and the possibility of necessary, a posteriori truths.[45]

Metaphysics remains a fertile topic of research, having recovered from the attacks of A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. And though many discussions are continuations of old ones, inherited from previous decades and centuries, the debate remains active. The philosophy of fiction, the problem of empty names, and the debate over existence's status as a property have all become major concerns, while perennial issues such as free will, possible worlds, and the philosophy of time have been revived.[46][47]

Science has also had an increasingly significant role in metaphysics. The theory of special relativity has had a profound effect on the philosophy of time, and quantum physics is routinely discussed in the free will debate.[47] The weight given to scientific evidence is largely due to widespread commitments among philosophers to scientific realism and naturalism.

and zizek praise stalin :^)

Yes. But you would have to define your terms.

If you define what do you mean by 'waifu' then you give it a certain characteristics, properties and qualities, then you find a match and bingo, now you have the objectively best waifu.

It would depend heavily on language. But continentals are no for they vagueness.

this is why nobody like continental

You are welcome, user.

This tired discussion always takes the same route on Holla Forums:

Continentals:

Analyticals:

Both sides are fucking moronic. This is probably the worst kind of thread actually made by people from here.

Oh, and there's also the continentals who love to cite Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Russell's paradox like they know what they're talking about (when they actually don't), but that's fortunately not that common.

Alright are you going to just paste things from wikipedia and say "it's true because I say so" while somehow believing you're being objective?

I'd just like to know why the stormfags and NRxers think they have a right to claim analytic philosophy as "theirs" when everyone knows that it's a sham and their whole stance boils down to vulgar "might makes right" posturing - and since the alt-right is a fringe minority, their inescapable lack of wider popular "might" turns into the very self-loathing they project back onto their opponents.

wew

the fact that I pasted it doesn't mean is wrong.

What? How the fuck did I imply that?

Any time that philosophers start criticizing other philosophers' ideas the discussion becomes akin to a shitposting thread. In that sense, Continental Philosophy is Holla Forums, and Analytic Philosophy is Holla Forums.

All you're doing is pasting from wikipedia trying to get people to think "wow this is so deep he must be right". You're not arguing anything by doing that, just being autistic.

Obligatory.

By saying both sides are fucking moronic.

There isn't a third way here, little fascist .

So because philosophy is important to politics then there is no problem talking about it nor you would consider it moronic.

Hint, hint.

You're an idiot.

I was referring only to Holla Forums, not the entire field of philosophy. All the Analytical vs Continental discussions I've seen on Holla Forums so far were fucking shit. Nothing of value ever came from either side.

wew

nice argument

Maybe because you guys get so butthurt about it?

Try not to get so butthurt next time, buddy.

Everyone go home, this is a shitposting thread.

...

...

It is, but retards took it to mean something like "turbo-autistic logical positivsts vs. obscurantist frenchfrogs"

Analytic philsophy already "won" in the sense that a clear and succinct style is the norm in contemporary philosophy (inb4 muh walking meme Zizek), but that doesn't really say anything about the content.

What does he say about a quality in general? How does he determine the basic component of determinations?

If you want more, try reading his book

But what constitutes a quality as such? Does he do this, or does he just start with stipulating properties and qualities?

If he starts with the determinate he cannot account for what determinateness is at all.

"Commitments", aka dogmas. Realism has been bunk since the pre-Socratics but now putting 'scientific' in front of it somehow makes it valid, because a lot of analytics wish they were doing science but are stuck doing their shitty philosophy. A folly of the highest order.

I feel like both sides are valuable doing what they do, I think it's stupid thinking you have to stick analytical or continental (tho I prefer the latter). I have Quine sitting next to Foucault on my bookshelf, no fucks given

By Sci-fi people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
sources?

That image was once a .gif wasn't it?

Last pomo thread, somebody started unironically quoting quantum physicists out of context to show how the Copenhagen Interpretation proved feelz>reelz.

Any strictly rational, evidence-based analysis of philosophy must eventually arrive at the conclusion that my feels > your "reals".
The only thing I know with any certainty is that I am alive.

...

I'm afraid that's not possible.
/leftypols/'s addiction to bait it's just to great.

Philosophy is for mediocre people that don't how to make anything of worth so they just spew jargon

...