Foucault, Baudrillard, and to a lesser extent Deleuze shit is so annoying because of the manner it is expressed. Truth is, what they are saying is very simple and easily conveyed if they talked in a clearer manner.
What I do is I read books by philosophers. If they make good points, I take them on board, if they fail to, I construct arguments against them or fill in the gaps of their views to make it more robust.
Because of this I am unable to participate in this debate because I'm not familiar with the differences between 'continental' and 'analytic' philosophy. I can infer some differences from the titles, but if I think about it for more than a few minutes it becomes nonsensical or, at least, superfluous.
It seems to me that there is so little untouched by culture and science that if you're going to study philosophy, you may as well just study philosophy. I can tell you how functionalism and panpsychism describe the same objective universe, but I can't have a pissing contest over my favourite philosopher. Guess I'm just a dumb-shit.
Both. Very few serious academics are 100% one way or the other in this day and age. Any quality undergraduate education should contain both. And any casual reader should examine both. If you earnestly believe that continental philosophy is just muh feels, you haven't read anything but quotes people post on tumblr.
>>80467 David Lewis wrote a book called "On the Plurality of Worlds" that goes full retard with modal logic. Kripke insisted that modality just be a semantic or logical notion and that speak of "possible worlds" are just grammatical hypotheticals, David argued that they could have existence in the sense of mathematics (a practical construct that has many applications), many people confuse his notion with the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics and thus people attacked him for believing in non-actual possible worlds. the joke of the paper is that he's hypothetically not wrong in interpreting lewis that way because for any "possible" there corresponds a world (non-causally related) with those conditions. Its just a theoretical apparatus Lewis thought would be helpful in the same sense that propositions are spoken of, but people ridicule him to this day for it
Depends on the context i believe. Political philosophy and other hard-tact dilemmas really don't need any flare - for its a question of logistics.
But the more existential questions - the questions that need answers only because we're human - they're the ones that really benefit from continental philosophy. Because when meaning, truth and value break down under the death of God and emergence of Nihilism, spice seems to be what remains: it's why Camus always talks about sunsets and the feeling of a beautiful womens skin, and why Neitzsche talks about victory and vanquishing your enemies, or why Kant suggests beauty is in the frustration of not knowing. Its a tautology - humanity and spice go together in the same way that we think logically (if X and Y are true, then Z) - and if logic breaks down, as i have suggested it does, then there is no reason to abandon the spice also!
Analytic. If we're going to argue about whether something is right or wrong, we have to prove it. Otherwise the discussion is pointless.
Continental philosophy doesn't do the whole 'logic and evidence' thing, so it can't establish proof or fact. Thus, it's basically religion. Which is fine, I'm religious myself, but then just call it religion or theology. Don't pretend you're looking for a discussable truth.
Anyone that takes the continental/analytic divide as something serious is an idiot. All philosophy is analytical, because that's what philosophy is about analyzing shit. No special snowflake crap allowed.
I prefer analytic philosophy. I believe continental philosophy does have valuable things to say, but the lack of argumentation annoys me. Argumentation is what characterizes philosophy, not using phony made.up concepts desu senpai
>>79483 modal realism theory says possible worlds cant have things in common, like an intersection. Objects can't be in two different worlds. I think that's what this article wants to argue against, haven't read it tho.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.