I am a midwit, I prefer the storytelling method of ancient philosophers, or even the personal narrative methods of modern philosophers like Hume, Schopenhauer or Cioran. Maybe I am just coping, being a midwit and all, but is Analytic philosopher really necessary to study? Will I loose a lot of knowledge if I don't?
I also think Analytical philosophy ruined math and science.
That's because you don't know any math or science.
Kripke's work on intuitionistic models is quite good.
Midwitgenstein.
You just answered your own question.
The areas intersect.
Analytic philosophy*
Pay no attention to it Anlalytic philosophy is the most definitive midwit shit I can imagine. It’s just nerds pretending like they’re “heckin smart” for doing math equations with logic. It’s just a barrier for put up by uncreative record keepers. No one has ever made any strides through this garbage, at best it’s a method of translating ideas, but as you said the way Plato did it fricking 2000 years ago was way more effective.
Plato's work was also riddled with basic logical errors, don't even really disagree but it's a bad example
>riddled with basic logical errors,
no they're not
Being serious here, have you even read Republic? Even moronic 16yo me thought some of the arguments he made were pretty sketchy lmao
Not that anon, but you probably just got filtered by it. The issue with Plato's dialogues is that people usually can't grasp the dramatic elements in them, and this is usually due to the fact that people are usually quite unfamiliar with the cultural currents of 5th century Athen.
It's not a treatise: it's a dialogue, and the people in it are generally stand-ins for real people. The main character is not talking to a generic audience (like Aristotle would have done), rather he is talking to specific people who are holding views that were accepted by certain milieux in Athenian society. That's why Socrates often adopts, in the first stage of the dialogue, flawed arguments: he is just trying to make the other guy own up his actual claim, so that when Socrates will eventually refute it the other guy will not he able to say "but that wasn't my claim!".
This is also why you often see the other guy saying "By Zeus, yes!", even tho what Socrates has just said is completely unintuitive. It is unintuitive to us, but it wasn't to them: that's what these people were actually saying!
Unfortunately if you're not familiar with all these dynamics, Plato's dialogues will sound a bit daft to you. But once you realize what he's actually doing, objections like yours will sound sophomoric to you.
That said, I don't think that's on you. Unfortunately I have seen many professors glossing entirely over these dramatic dynamics, and you cannot always expect young student to figure it out on their own.
I also want to point out that due to these dramatic dynamics, the arguments actually contained in most dialogues will be downright unintelligible unless one has reconstructed first the whole dramatic framework of the dialogue itself. Formalizing those arguments will be pointless if you have not figured out why Socrates is saying this or that, or of what cultural milieu is dialogant is part of, etc. To formalize them you first have to understand the actual meaning of the text, and this will require an analysis of the narrative and dramatic structure of the text.
you are literally arguing with a moronic 16 year old. don't waste your time.
He said "even moronic 16yo me", so I assumed he was talking about a past occurrence (as in, he is older than 16, but when he first read the Republic in hs he already found some "flaws" in Socrates' arguments).
But if he is a 16yo, then my advice (which is to first focus on the dramatic and narrative aspects of Plato's dialogues, and to figure out who the characters actually were) is even more needed. I wish someone told me that when I was 16.
>That's why Socrates often adopts, in the first stage of the dialogue, flawed arguments: he is just trying to make the other guy own up his actual claim, so that when Socrates will eventually refute it the other guy will not he able to say "but that wasn't my claim!".
Ik, that's expected. I'm talking about formal logical fallacies, where Socrates is advancing his own position where you get nonsequitors like
>if A then B. A is true, therefore C
ESL detected
>Ik, that's expected. I'm talking about formal logical fallacies, where Socrates is advancing his own position where you get nonsequitors like
>if A then B. A is true, therefore C
Can you provide any example from the Republic? I doubt you can
I literally marked down 3 or 4 in the first 50 pages of my 400+ page copy lol, and I wasn't even looking particularly hard. Philosophy is much more rewarding when you critically examine their arguments as you read thrm
definitely a moronic 16 year old
Pics or it didn't happen
You mean in Book 1, when he is talking to Thrasymacus?
I'll quote myself again:
>That's why Socrates often adopts, in the first stage of the dialogue, flawed arguments: he is just trying to make the other guy own up his actual claim, so that when Socrates will eventually refute it the other guy will not he able to say "but that wasn't my claim!".
The dialogue with Thrasymacus never got to the second, more substantial stage. He stormed off once he realized that his position could be defeated in his own terms. The fact that his own terms are fallacious are part of the refutation (and here you naively assign these fallacies to Socrates, which is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post).
>ESL detected
apparently you are good at being wrong
>Even moronic 16yo like me
and there you have it. it all makes sense now. you have to be at least 18 to post here.
can you make an effort and read in the literature board or do you need more practice
It explains why you couldn't understand the argument lol. Filtered.
And I'm not necessarily the biggest Plato fan, but the way he communicated his ideas through dialogues is imo the most effective way to communicate philosophy.
Do you want to be correct or not?
What has analytic philosophy proved that is distinct to continental philosophy?
wittgenstein is cool looking, that all you need to know
lose*
What is the point of creating a new language that people don't understand, if you are so bothered by the problems in your current language.
I asked my professor how we knew formal language accurately represented the meaning of the natural language sentence it was meant to formalize. He said we didn't. It was then that I realized formal language in philosophy was a dumb move.
As a mathematician I can assure you that the so called analytic philosophy is just low IQ cringe larp by people who are actually too dumb for mathematical logic.
Ancient philosophers don't "tell stories," read the Sophist, Plato has the Eleatic Stranger explicitly differentiate the tellers of stories (muthoi) from the method of division (diairesis, or analysis) that defines the true philosopher. Aristotle then adopts this method as the cornerstone of philosophizing to develop his logic in the Organon. This is the background to all analytic philosophy, which is based on Aristotle's logic which was itself a development of Plato's method. Classical philosophers are the original "analytical" philosophers.
So-called analytic philosophy today is just a hypertrophy of logicism, partly growing out of Frege's (interesting and intertwined) ideas of a purified symbolic notation, a la Boole and Peano, and an overthrow of 19th century vulgar Kantian transcendental psychology by the reimposition of rationalism; and partly out of Vienna "logical empiricism" or "logical positivism," which was a neo-Kantian scientistic philosophy growing partly out of the Marburg school. In spirit they were also influenced by American "critical realism," a rather vulgar offshoot of pragmatism in the first decades of the 20th century that is now mostly forgotten, which had both British/American Hegelian metaphysical idealist aspects (these quickly falling into tbhetude) and positivistic, radically British empiricist and positivist aspects (these unfortunately becoming both dominant, and very strident).
The English analytics following Russell (who was friends with Couturat, who was a major Leibniz scholar) and Ayer (who spent time with the Vienna school and was briefly very enthused by it) only very briefly had a semi-coherent philosophical paradigm, which Ayer and even Russell survived. Even its earliest adherents like John Wisdom and Ayer himself repudiated it, as did Wittgenstein (to the extent that he was ever an advocate of it; he was really providing a critique of it and its limits already in the Tractatus).
Then came Wittgenstein, a man who had read and defended Heidegger, Spengler, and Schopenhauer (a great intuitionist philosopher of mathematics, inspiring Brouwer), who hated mathematical logicism and despised set theory, and who thought instinctively like a Baden neo-Kantian rather than a Marburg neo-Kantian. All the analytics, already frustrated with the failures of positivism, flocked to his good philosophy and hewed off parts of it small enough for them to half-digest, creating "ordinary language philosophy," which unfortunately was badly shot through with the same critical realist (vulgar British empiricist + naive realist / materialist) and positivistic and de-metaphysicized logicistic dregs of the '30s.
Nevertheless, so began the long period of healing for English philosophy, which, having burnt its bridges to the continent, had to construct them all over again to rejoin the common philosophical dialogue of the European peoples. A degenerate race of post-neo-analytic pygmies arose in the Isles (which, tragically, also spread to the whole Commonwealth like rats on British merchant ships), creating a cargo cult out of the fragments of the failed logical positivist paradigm, developing strange sub-cults and sub-sub-cults like "modal possible worlds mereological fuzzy logics" and arguing about whether the triangle indicating a bi-tensional sneed entity should be isosceles or equilateral. Their leader was a goblin named Saul Kripke, who liked to peer at young women from bushes. A small tribe of "Philosophy majors" tried to keep a pure strain of paradigmatic analytic philosophy alive amid the strange rituals of the pygmies, but with each passing year it faded a little more, until nobody could really remember what it was.
>who thought instinctively like a Baden neo-Kantian rather than a Marburg neo-Kantian
What are the differences in a nutshell?
What do you think about current "analytic" metaphysics? I am frustrated by it after studying German Idealism as I see it as already presupposing the current common sense worldview (probably for socio-political reasons like not getting cancelled) and then simply trying to reconcile its obvious contradictions without ever abandoning that world view (similar to what happened with Ptolemaic astronomy).
Kit Fine exemplifies it:
>I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made.
I got filtered by this reply, can you recommend a book on understanding history or anything about neo-kantianism?
Thank you but 5 pages are not enough
It's interesting to know about analytic philosophy but much of it doesn't stray too far from the philosophical problems started by plato and continued in the continental tradition, if only by a more centered concern on what science has to say.
Like it's close cousin, math, when it comes to analytical philosophy you don't want to delve into classic works like the principia. Read essays by Frege, Quine and Carnap to see if you're interested in the problems that they're tackling, these essays apart from some notation are often very clear and dealing with very concrete philosophical problems.
Going through a logic manual might be good just as a general knowledge thing, and to understand some deeper concepts, but it's probably a useless tool when it comes to actually philosophizing. There are some anglo-american philosophers whi try to solve ethical problems through logic but that's the kind of literature that's probably best avoided.
Why learn formal logic? Logic functions as a replacement for intuition, so that when intuition misleads you, you have another tool to work around the problem. You don't need to memorize every symbol, but once you see the general goal and methods, then you have a very powerful intellectual tool to learn new material fast and to sniff out pompous bullshit to ignore it. I recommend Frege.
Necessary is a stretch, if you prefer other types then stick to what you prefer. The various languages used are not actually that difficult once you grasp the conventions and symbols, I would say I benefited from it but if you asked me for some sort of Lambda derived proofing on something I would have to stop and think about it. At the very least I would say maybe learn some first order.
Nietzche was a midwitt. Holy moron
Explain what's wrong with what he said?
Not him but it is trivial to define real world things with math. Most simply by saying there's a margin of error.
Most analytic philosophy doesn't look lile that.
if you don't think it's cool to reconstruct a fragment of arithmetic in a higher order set theory then like idk if philosophy is really for you broski. maybe stick to self help.
Idk if analytic philosophy*