Sartre is the greatest philosopher of all time

[laaltin]

Everything from stoicism to religion is cope

 

[PeakIncels]

nihilism is the truth

 

[laaltin]

nihilism is the truth

Go one step ahead and take your life in your own reins

 

[laaltin]

It’s backed by the fact that he philosophy mogged his contemporary Camus despite Camus’ looks halo

 

[Brus Wane]

Diogenes was the best simply for jerking it in public no one comes close (pun intended)

 

[97baHater]

It’s backed by the fact that he philosophy mogged his contenporary Camus’ even tho Camus had looks halo

Camus isn’t a philosopher idk y America’s think he was one when French themselves don’t regard him as a philosopher

 

[byvw]

Sartre is the most retarded of all continental philosophers. All continentals are morons tho.

 

[laaltin]

Sartre is the most retarded of all continental philosophers. All continentals are morons tho.

British inferiority complex

 

[byvw]

British inferiority complex

Analytical philosophy has always shown me how ignorant those outside a field can be about that field. So don't pay attention to criticisms from outside, read criticisms from inside (like Peter Unger) and then make your decision.

If philosophy is developing argumentative ideas in a dialectical process (I don't know why I said "if", that's what philosophy is anyway), analytical philosophy is the only real philosophy. The opposite of this is not even a subject of discussion. There's no point in talking nonsense about naturalness, locality, historicity, etc.

The problem with analytical philosophy is that it cannot market itself well. The continentalists market themselves in such a way that we think that Daseins, post-metaphysical ages, subjective nonsense that constructs everything, nonsense about philosophizing with a hammer, etc. have taken over all of philosophy.

However, this is not exactly the case in analytical philosophy. After logical positivism lost its reputation, rising ontologies evolved into doing metaphysics in an increasingly dynamic way. In this respect, the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century are like the rediscovery of metaphysics. This is something that completely collapses the claims of Habermas, nihilists, deconstructionists, etc. that metaphysics is over.

The other issue is realism. I don't mean those who are simply against the anti-realist side, critical realism, perspective realism, etc. are important as a critical stance against current problems. On the other hand, social ontology (Searle), which complements this critical realist stance in social sciences from another perspective, are also important issues.

It is important that logic, epistemology, philosophy of religion, moral philosophy, etc. can be openly discussed and debated in a way that is closer to traditional philosophy than the verbosity in continental philosophy.

But if we go back to the part about marketing itself, we come face to face with the realities that limit all the intellectual achievements of analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy is scholastic philosophy in the sense that you know it. It cannot go beyond its own academic grounds and departments, and if it does, it does so not on a subject-based basis, but in a very narrow sense as Wittgensteinism, Popperism, Kuhnism, etc. and it requires expertise, this is important because current analytical philosophy has become something that only those who work in that field will be aware of. Its inability to market itself is primarily related to this.

Another reason is that there are writers like Searle who give a general perspective on the subject and are enjoyable to read, but there are writers who have a boring style on narrow subjects. For example, read books by Thomas Nagel, Huemer, Putnam, etc. who try to give a broad perspective, they are very boring. And most writers in analytical philosophy are not openly enlightening but feel shallow. I don't know, for example, if we go back to continental philosophy, sometimes I don't understand a single word while reading Ricoeur, Zizek, etc., it feels like they are talking about "cool", very "deep" issues. I think this explains why people have never turned to analytical philosophy. People read Nietzsche, Continentalists, etc. not only for their philosophy, but also because of their style that makes them feel full enough to give a deep and general perspective. Obscurantism often gives the text a mystical dimension.

For me, the last reason is also related to the style and scholasticism topic above, analytical philosophy does not feel like a natural endeavor in life. It often feels artificial and forced. And no matter how important it may seem, up to 80% of most topics revolve around unimportant issues. Whether you agree with what Peter Unger calls empty ideas or not, these empty ideas are real. In other words, if you stick to analytical philosophy too much, you will waste your life with empty ideas that are disconnected from reality.

Analytical philosophy is actually the only true philosophy.

Now lets talk about continental philosophy.
Stupid. It is a waste of time

Like every waste of time, it looks very cool from a distance, very deep thoughts that require high intellectuality, etc. but in essence it is a big nothing. Of course, if you are very ignorant, you will not understand the subject, but when you gain some knowledge, you will realize that continental philosophy is much more terrible than the analytical people who constantly criticize it, and that it is even a madness that completely prohibits thinking.

In fact, Western philosophy has initiated a series of processes in the search for a methodology that will show the truth (conversations on method), which it outlined with Descartes. Vico's new science and then Kant's effort to find a method that will show the truth with his critique of pure reason has turned into a serious crisis. Although understandings that limit the definition of this crisis to positivism, scientism, etc. are more common, in reality hermeneutics, phenomenology, etc. are also essentially children of this crisis.

The point that is overlooked when historicism is used in the criticisms of positivism is this; the proposal of what is called historicism was that positivism could not be valid in geistic sciences, for example. In fact, there is a transition here; Dilthey starts from a point very close to positivism, and in time he includes psychology and moves to another method, and in the last 10 years of his life he moves to another method that ends with hermeneutics.

Dilthey is just an example, what we mean here is that the whole of 19th century thought was an effort to find a method to replace metaphysics. The conflict between naturswissenschaft and geisteswissenschaft, the conflict between science and worldview, are actually related to the struggle of different methods with each other.

What happens here is that philosophy as a whole is fragmented and forms different traditions, and all of these traditions base their own more contextual methods on metaphysics, which they believe represents the old philosophy and historicize in different ways. In other words, the movements that constituted continental philosophy were essentially aiming at the same thing, namely, positivism, which they constantly criticized.

These were my words up to Heidegger, of course they continue after Heidegger, but Heidegger adds a completely different dimension. Because the madness of continental philosophy begins with the Nazi called Heidegger. Heidegger turns the situation called "crisis of historicism" into a very radical pessimistic nihilism, turns historicity into a kind of existence, and at this very point, he declares the end of history, which he extracts from Christian nonsense, and ends history at a point that historicizes even thinking.

Continental philosophy after Heidegger is the swamp of obscurantism. From existentialists to poststructuralists, from Gadamer to Levinas... Of course, it may seem like I'm being reductionist here, but even though the methods are different and diversified (deconstruction, other methods related to critical theories, or the mixture of psychoanalysis and the old ones that we see in Zizek, etc.), when the entire system is infected with parasites, that system goes to shit completely.

Meanwhile, analytic philosophy is doing much more successful work. Yes, analytic philosophy also acts with the methods that emerged in the 19th century that we explained above, but in terms of method, it develops more conservative philosophizing methods compared to the radical stances in continental philosophy. And instead of obscurantism, all subjects are discussed openly. Everything is out there, even if you examine metaphysics, logic, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, you will see that what continental philosophy does is not thinking but talking nonsense. Even in the field of social sciences, the social ontology developed by Searle or the methods of critical realists are much more consistent than the shits of continentalists.

This was supposedly the most ambitious thing continental philosophy was. One of the last big nonsense that this philosophy has brought upon us, poststructuralist/postmodern thought, no matter how critical it is, cannot reach a level where this criticism can really question the contemporary world, liberalism, capitalism, etc. All they do is criticize the enlightenment ideas that they historicize over and over again. But is this really that important? Of course it's important if you want to destroy the past that doesn't match your contemporary orientation, ha ha. Foucault, Derrida, etc. are all people who have inhaled that Heideggerian madness. What else can you expect from them?

DNR: Anglos are superior in philosophy as in every field.