I finally understand why there is an analytic-contintental split.

I finally understand why there is an analytic-contintental split. Ultimately, the analytic wanted to separate himself from Hegel in order to be cool with his anti-philosophy science nerd friends because the Hegelian substance is mental, from which woo stuff follows, and if there is anything science nerds really hate it's woo stuff. To be sure, science nerds are something distinct from actual scientists, and by that I mean the scientists that are also philosophers.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    inb4 the flood of analytics trying to say LOOK WE HAVE WEIRD PANPSYCHISTS TOO LOOK LOOK

    yeah there are a few and they all suck bad, and it took you most of the century to get back to that level anyway

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whitehead does not suck, though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        well that's because Whitehead is not analytic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a lot of weird stuff though and even what's supposed to be rigorous really isn't. Even fricking Bernardo Kastrup is an analytic philosopher.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My opinion on this has been met with mixed responses in the past but I will repeat it nonetheless, Hegel probably would have enjoyed Analytic philosophy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel is pretty critical of the "external" logic of the rationalists in various places, including the Preface of the PdG

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If we throw in Science of Logic and Philosophy of Right he does make references that are conducive. The parallel emphases on integration of various fields of study, various logic pools, and the desire to solve specified problems are hard to overlook. He certainly would have been verbose by comparison but there is enough material that his interest would likely have been piqued.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I tend to agree. Hegel carries that stench all the way through

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He'd call it unsystematic garbage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >My opinion on this has been met with mixed responses in the past but I will repeat it nonetheless, Hegel probably would have enjoyed Analytic philosophy.

      https://i.imgur.com/OMeHjFD.png

      You are a pseud who doesn't even understands the basics of Hegel's Science of Logic and repeats the extremely inaccurate idea that for Hegel reality is ultimately reducible to the mental. You even talk of "Hegelian substance" inaccurately, instead of using more appropriate talk of the Idea or the Absolute. The earliest analytics had no problem with mental content. It's not just "weird panpsychists" later on, when Frege had no problem with it, Moore was a dualist, Russell was first a dualist and then a phenomenalist (which is still mental), and people like the positivists were also phenomenalists. For these people, sense data was more fundamentally secure even than the material world. It wasn't until the period after the positivists that analytics started to trend toward materialism for some time. So you don't even understand analytic philosophy's history. Can't you people just read Hegel and the analytics or anything? Like look at this other stupid anon undermining the philosophical importance of Nietzsche and the existentialists, proving lack of sufficient acquaintance with their many works. None of you read. If you actually read everything you wouldn't hype up these stupid playground battles anymore, because you would achieve the appropriate historian mindset that appreciates everything.
      [...]
      It's a good hot take, I think you are right that he would have enjoyed it. Kant, Fichte, and Schelling? Not so much. You can tell from their temperament that they strongly disliked whatever was different from them. Hegel instead incorporates everyone and everything into his greater system of history of the Absolute. He wouldn't exclude the analytics or anyone else if he were alive for it, and he would pay them (and anyone else) fair attention.

      Hegel was an entertainer of the german bourgeoisie and nothing else. He never was interested in truth. Like all bourgeois he fancied himself as a free thinker who created his little worldview which was sold as being better, more universalist, more progressist than whatever scholastic thinkers came up with.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I despite dogmatic advocates for Hegel. But seeing the whole "deduction of the placement of the planets" thing being used is cringe, anyone capable of actually reading should clearly be able to se that, in that instance, Hegel was arguing that doing such a thing would be absurd, and so as correct as people are to cut down the claimed achievements of Hegel, to continue to make such a blunder is inexcusable and only gives more fuel to those who claim that any critic of the master must be 'misreading' him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I will certainly not attempt to defend all of Hegel's assertions in De Planetis, and I doubt anyone these days would attempt to do so. That aside, in that very paper it should be noted that Hegel arrived at the same conclusion Gödel arrived at significantly later, but Hegel did not receive the same fanfare in his own time regarding what Gödel termed incompleteness. Hegel also made some assertions regarding the differences in triangles, squares, and cubes that are laughable until you look up orbital decay and realize that his critique of motion was not necessarily unfounded, there would have been no way to test any of his assertions in his own time, and modern orbital decay procedure has a sufficiently empirical process that Hegel's notions would have no modern standing regardless in all honesty, just pointing out that he caught onto it before it was even a noteworthy real life scenario. He also makes some derivations about the relation to spirit, time, and space, which could be logically extrapolated in any number of ways that lead to both valid empirical findings, and non-valid empirical findings, so by no means am I saying Hegel should be used as a starting point on these, but rather he was picking up on some of the failings of the accepted understandings of his time.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They wanted separate themselves from British Hegelians that no one cares about any more, on either side of the divide.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not just British Hegelians, but Hegelians in general, including the Grand Master himself.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No "woo woo stuff" even follows from Hegel because his system is completely impotent. His historicism and politics doesn't even follow from his philosophy, it just imitates it in form. Hegel's philosophy can't tell you one concrete thing about empirical reality like what will happen after death or if a personal God exists. It literally has ZERO practical implications. You can just take it or leave it and nothing changes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Hegel's philosophy can't tell you one concrete thing about empirical reality like what will happen after death or if a personal God exists.
      ngmi

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I asked this before and some one probably you just posted some quote in german that vaguely connected to life after death but didn't say anything concrete about it at all. If you can post Hegel explicitly saying "afterlife exists" or "afterlife doesn't exist" or "God actually talks to people" then I will change my mind otherwise frick off with your smugposting.

        Whose philosophy can tell me what happens after death?

        Pretty much all of them until you get to Kant, and excepting the skeptics and academic skeptics
        >Pythagoras, Plato, Neoplatonists
        Metempsychosis
        >Aristotle
        Not sure what he said exactly happens to it after death but it is immortal
        >Democritus, Epicurus
        Dissolution of your self, the aerial atoms that make up your soul disperse and move somewhere else
        >literally every western philosopher for the next 1700 years
        christian afterlife

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hegel's theology is literally just philosophical Lutheranism. A big chunk of it was justifying the conventional Trinitarian God

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is correct btw. Hegel is fundamentally Christian and more specifically Lutheran and you can’t just ignore that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He is most definitely not a Lutheran.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He deftly illustrates that embracing the opposite of Luther's theology still affirms Lutheran dogma despite denying it.

            Plus, he personally insisted throughout his life that he was an Orthodox Lutheran

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Spinoza believed in a Christian afterlife?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Spinoza was a israeli philosopher not western, obviously Al-Razi is also not included

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Netherlands is pretty far west as far as the old world goes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >other philosophers had moronic, unjustified opinions about all kinds of things. why can't Hegel be more like them?
          What kind of criticism is this supposed to be?
          The fact that he systematically lays out the limits of philosophical knowledge one of Hegels greatest strengths. You can't know about the future, can't make necessary statements about contingent empirical facts or totally subsume them under the universal (pure reason your way into knowing the positions of the stars in the night sky, say), can't know about radical alterity. In that he was already ahead of most of analytic AND continental philosophy, which usually falls into at least one of these traps.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whose philosophy can tell me what happens after death?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is bait right? It has too be. Or did you just completely make up that entire reply?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't see that as the reason for the split really.
    To me it's this: analytic philosophers accept that logic/the Logos is a real thing, instead of a human invention, so they proceed from there as an axiom for analyzing the human condition and external reality.
    The continentals assume that logic/the Logos is a human invention like every other concept, and thus they factor in irrationality and emotionalism as legitimate pieces of the human condition to be thought about too. They don't accept the axiomatic concreteness of logic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The continentals assume that logic/the Logos is a human invention like every other concept
      bro you're gonna have to actually reaf Hegel

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I have. The continentals encompass more than Hegel and aren't defined by Hegelianism. Nietzsche is a continental and rejects Hegel entirely. All of existentialism is continental.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Nietzsche is a continental and rejects Hegel entirely. All of existentialism is continental.
          I didn't include them because they are not philosophers.

          > Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is actually carried out.[...] A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's Hegels opinion and you mirror it. Doesn't make it so. They are indeed philosophers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Doesn't make it so. They are indeed philosophers
            except it is and they aren't

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No u

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are a pseud who doesn't even understands the basics of Hegel's Science of Logic and repeats the extremely inaccurate idea that for Hegel reality is ultimately reducible to the mental. You even talk of "Hegelian substance" inaccurately, instead of using more appropriate talk of the Idea or the Absolute. The earliest analytics had no problem with mental content. It's not just "weird panpsychists" later on, when Frege had no problem with it, Moore was a dualist, Russell was first a dualist and then a phenomenalist (which is still mental), and people like the positivists were also phenomenalists. For these people, sense data was more fundamentally secure even than the material world. It wasn't until the period after the positivists that analytics started to trend toward materialism for some time. So you don't even understand analytic philosophy's history. Can't you people just read Hegel and the analytics or anything? Like look at this other stupid anon undermining the philosophical importance of Nietzsche and the existentialists, proving lack of sufficient acquaintance with their many works. None of you read. If you actually read everything you wouldn't hype up these stupid playground battles anymore, because you would achieve the appropriate historian mindset that appreciates everything.

            My opinion on this has been met with mixed responses in the past but I will repeat it nonetheless, Hegel probably would have enjoyed Analytic philosophy.

            It's a good hot take, I think you are right that he would have enjoyed it. Kant, Fichte, and Schelling? Not so much. You can tell from their temperament that they strongly disliked whatever was different from them. Hegel instead incorporates everyone and everything into his greater system of history of the Absolute. He wouldn't exclude the analytics or anyone else if he were alive for it, and he would pay them (and anyone else) fair attention.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dont really like Hegel, but, I agree with just about everything you wrote here. It's pretty abysmal a lot of the time round here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            that post reads like a ChatGPT response

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is so wrong on so much.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it is

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think it is bad form for someone with postgraduate philosophy training to be substantively posting here, it gives this awful toxic website legitimacy. If it remains "stupid playground battles" then it's easy for even laymen to dismiss what's said here, but if you get the sense that the Anons here know what they're talking about that can be dangerous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > if you get the sense that the Anons here know what they're talking about that can be dangerous.
            why?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because laymen can't tell "pseuds" from actual experts and the anonymous nature of the forum will cause a sort of schizophrenia where it's not clear who to trust, and if it doesn't do that then it will just result in stupid people being believed as much as any expert. Furthermore, the culture on this board is toxic in such a way that I think it mixes uniquely with expertise to enable what some might call "epistemic injustice".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >epistemic injustice
            what is that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Look into Miranda Fricker, but I don't want to marry herself to her terminology so I'll just put what I meant in my words: there are people who use formal training to bully, oppress, dismiss, etc. less educated people who don't have thehermeneutical resources to respond. If you've been on this board or even certain parts of other websites (thinking of r/badX subreddits) you've seen this happen. This website is really toxic and it can be a horrible place for people of low self-esteem to interact, this only gets worse if actual experts are using it.

            >don't make high-quality posts, you're just making things worse!!!
            lolmao

            I come here for the cheap laughs, I don't give a frick about "high-quality posts" or the well-being of this site; in fact I'm sympathetic to people who think it being shut down would be a net benefit to society.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >herself
            *myself

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Coddling homosexuals with low self-esteem just gets you academia, which is a glorified Endless Brunch for noncontributing office prostitutes. Consider this: if Philosophy had even the bare minimum necessary elitist gatekeeping, there would be barely any women in it. Instead there are endless amounts of women clogging it up. Something has gone deeply wrong there.

            This website has better quality discourse than some disgusting conference or workshop where all the women take 40 fricking minutes to say anything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you talk like a gay and your shit's all moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >don't make high-quality posts, you're just making things worse!!!
            lolmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >trust the experts
            Pure malicious evil mixed with stupidity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, I really hope the people with actual graduate studies and doctoral and postdoctoral work in philosophy keep shitposting here because their posts are the one thing that keeps me coming back to this place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >their posts are the one thing that keeps me coming back to this place.
            me too anon. me too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I highly doubt that Hegel would look at the history of philosophy after his death through the same lens of the long march of reason. Most of it is one massive regression caused by human folly and evil, and Hegel doesn't really have a place for that in his system.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you would achieve the appropriate historian mindset that appreciates everything.
            Lots of people read "everything" and don't do this. Adorno is an easy example.
            Viewing history as a march of progress where everything has its place in the "cunning of reason" implies certain sympathies to the Enlightenment and thus liberal values, which I reject. If you reject them too then you might want to reconsider your endorsement of Hegel's philosophy of history.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Viewing history as a march of progress where everything has its place in the "cunning of reason" implies certain sympathies to the Enlightenment and thus liberal values
            not everything has to be part of the march of progress for progress to be real, you know. Hegel acknowledges the existence of senseless violence and brutality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think he does. That's the point of the brutality of "cunning of reason" and why Adorno felt the need to reject philosophies of history descended from Hegel after the Holocaust. But in any case it's implied by your language when you say "the appropriate historian mindset that appreciates everything",. i.e viewing everythinv in history as ultimately a positive.
            >for progress to be real
            I deny this for an unrelated reason which is that the "progress" we talk about is intergrating people into liberalism. If you reject liberalism (or adjacent ideologies that inherit Enlightenment ideas, like Marxism), then there isn't even any point in seeing progress and any attempts at doing so strike you as suspicious.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Adorno and other philosophers in the Frankfurt Circle were willing to engage the works of Carl Schmitt and Oswald Spengler critically, to give two examples of German conservative philosophers. As Hegel himself and the other anon replying to you note, there is a recognition that there are "sides" to historical development, and a historian is able to take one or none of these sides. That's not the same as the kind of faithless misrepresentation and polemical antagonism based in lack of understanding that people who don't even read their sources have against their so-called enemies.

            Because laymen can't tell "pseuds" from actual experts and the anonymous nature of the forum will cause a sort of schizophrenia where it's not clear who to trust, and if it doesn't do that then it will just result in stupid people being believed as much as any expert. Furthermore, the culture on this board is toxic in such a way that I think it mixes uniquely with expertise to enable what some might call "epistemic injustice".

            Look into Miranda Fricker, but I don't want to marry herself to her terminology so I'll just put what I meant in my words: there are people who use formal training to bully, oppress, dismiss, etc. less educated people who don't have thehermeneutical resources to respond. If you've been on this board or even certain parts of other websites (thinking of r/badX subreddits) you've seen this happen. This website is really toxic and it can be a horrible place for people of low self-esteem to interact, this only gets worse if actual experts are using it.
            [...]
            I come here for the cheap laughs, I don't give a frick about "high-quality posts" or the well-being of this site; in fact I'm sympathetic to people who think it being shut down would be a net benefit to society.

            I think this site relies on anti-research measures such as ad populum reasoning and the use of toxic insults to make people feel insecure and then practice epistemic injustice. I'm sure some people exist who meet the criteria you're giving, of having done research but somehow leading people in a wrong direction. But by and large people who appropriately do research here just tell anons to go do research themselves. And if this "legitimizes" IQfy in the eyes of non-IQfy outsiders, there's people on those communities who do research and can confirm/deny and point other people to it. A good effortposter will always tell people to go read some works and to be careful on this site with anyone who acts too antagonistic and simplistic and identifable inaccurate. Granted those people are few, but few enough that I don't think any sense of legitimized "authority" (that just causes epistemic injustice) stems from those people. It largely stems from the non-experts who use ad populum reasoning and slurs to bully the insecure, like I said. In fact the few people able to tackle that stuff correctly and rightly on this entire site tend to be people who have done their research. But by any means don't trust me or anyone who you think is posturing over you due to research: you should go and read the stuff yourself.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe it’s because they believed mathematics was analytic and not synthetic…

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the limits of my incidental tools are also the limits of reality
    >no I can't build those tools using only those tools but there's still nothing my representation of reality is missing
    I keep thinking I'm missing something but nope. Anglos think words are the things they represent, it's a nasty biproduct of Protestantism and mass literacy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *