Word salad pretending to be meaningful speech. — StreetlightX

All three of the academic sources I quoted from say the same thing I just said.

I wouldn't, because there is no singular 'analytical style'. As if something as ephemeral as 'style' determined anything at all in the first place. — StreetlightX

Analytical philosophy conducts conceptual investigations, specifically into linguistic, idealistic logical structures. Well, one does not need to do this to arrive at truth, further, this kind of appraoch has a very limited value. Notice Banno did not reply back to me when I asked him for examples? This is because this is not the procedure, method or form of the social sciences. Looking at these structures has not proven to be very fruitful. This is not the direction that linguistic studies have gone, they have gone in the direction of neurobiology and hard observation coupled with modern psychology. Analytical Philosophy is desperately lacking explanatory power. It has no future. It's simply a philosophical aesthetic form.

I literally do not know what you mean by this. — Srap Tasmaner

You spoke about "acceptable ways of talking," no?

My reply was to state that the only thing that matters in this sense 'is whether a premise is stating something accurate.' You can talk about ways of talking all day long, you can say that a way is false, but if it's articulating something accurate, or achieving value, then this charge doesn't matter.

A fallacious appeal to authority is not 'evidence'. It's laziness and shitty pseudo-scholarship three times over. — StreetlightX

If it's considered a false appeal to authority to quote from philosophical dictionaries, how do you propose we go about defining the Analytical style then?

es, this kind of 60,000ft view is made for outsiders and neophytes to satisfy a misplaced craving for generality. It takes the ignorant or the impudent to think anything substantive can be said on the basis of it. — StreetlightX

Come on man, this is all ad hominem: "outsiders," "neophytes," "misplaced craving," "ignorant," "impudent." Do you realize you just condemned three major philosophical dictionaries?

I made a valid argument. You then tried to bypass it by claiming there is no such thing as an Analytical Form, I responded with an argument and evidence demarcating the Analytical Form.

(Notice I am not saying anything about you, not attacking you, not characterizing your position, just trying to deal with your ideas)? This is how philosophy should proceed.

I wouldn't find this an acceptable way to talk about "modern philosophy" or "Marxist philosophy" or "feminist philosophy" or "German philosophy". — Srap Tasmaner

The only thing that matters is whether a premise is stating something accurate in this sense. You demonstrate exactly what I've been saying, a bias for the Analytical Form, but I have already presented a valid challenge to this that has not yet been answered:

'I take this to be a strong antithesis to the Analytical form: one doesn't have to use the Analytical style to arrive at truth. One doesn't have to use the Analytical form to state a true premise. Conclusion: the Analytical form must justify itself against the relevance and value of other forms. Why? Because life is exceedingly short. The Analytical form demands that truth take on a certain form in order to be considered valid or valuable, this is false, even as the Analytical Philosopher makes more use of other forms than he does his own form. He does this because his own form is lacking in real-world-value. His form is a game that is not conducive to reality.'

Of course, the logical approach is to try to deny that there is such a thing as the Analytical Form.

It has a multitude of styles and approaches. — StreetlightX

But there is a common thread that runs between them, a very intensive kind of logical analysis that emphasizes the attributes of concepts.

"If asked what ‘analysis’ means, most people today immediately think of breaking something down into its components; and this is how analysis tends to be officially characterized. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, for example, ‘analysis’ is defined as the “resolution into simpler elements by analysing (opp. synthesis)”, the only other uses mentioned being the mathematical and the psychological. And in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, ‘analysis’ is defined as “the process of breaking a concept down into more simple parts, so that its logical structure is displayed”. The restriction to concepts and the reference to displaying ‘logical structure’ are important qualifications, but the core conception remains that of breaking something down." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/

"Analytic philosophy, also called linguistic philosophy, a loosely related set of approaches to philosophical problems, dominant in Anglo-American philosophy from the early 20th century, that emphasizes the study of language and the logical analysis of concepts... Analytic philosophers conduct conceptual investigations that characteristically, though not invariably, involve studies of the language in which the concepts in question are, or can be, expressed. According to one tradition in analytic philosophy (sometimes referred to as formalism), for example, the definition of a concept can be determined by uncovering the underlying logical structures, or “logical forms,” of the sentences used to express it." Britannica, Analytical Philosophy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-philosophy

Analytical Philosophy: a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems in the analysis of propositions or sentences: Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analytic%20philosophy

(And the same with "continental philosophy.") — SophistiCat

I need to make it clear, for me the distinction is not between Analytical Philosophy and Continental Philosophy, but these taken together in contrast to Dialectical Philosophy, or if you will, Idealism versus Materialism.

No, I consider these 'invalid' because 'the analytical form' corresponds to nothing but a fantasy that exists nowhere but in your head. — StreetlightX

There is no need for either one of us to get emotional here. This is how philosophy works, it contradicts positive knowledge to make gains in knowledge. So you claim that Analytical Philosophy doesn't have its own distinct style or approach?

There is nothing to deal with. You're speaking at a level of generality so broad as to be useless. There's no there there. — StreetlightX

Then it should be super easy to refute.

'I take this to be a strong antithesis to the Analytical form: one doesn't have to use the Analytical style to arrive at truth. One doesn't have to use the Analytical form to state a true premise. Conclusion: the Analytical form must justify itself against the relevance and value of other forms. Why? Because life is exceedingly short. The Analytical form demands that truth take on a certain form in order to be considered valid or valuable, this is false, even as the Analytical Philosopher makes more use of other forms than he does his own form. He does this because his own form is lacking in real-world-value. His form is a game that is not conducive to reality.'

Do I need to adhere to the analytical form to arrive at truth? Do I need to use the analytical form to state a true premise? Why should I submit to this form when my life is exceedingly short? Do you consider these questions and premises invalid because they are not presented in analytical form? What form do you use when you navigate the world in which you live?

I haven't attacked a single person, I am simply dealing with beliefs and the presumption of forms. I am not the one getting emotional here.

I'm about as much a proponent of 'the analytical form' as I am a coconut. What I am against however, is the peddling of ignorance by the ignorant and arrogant. — StreetlightX

This is just emotion and ad hominem. Come now friend, just refute my premises. Let us deal with the truth or error of my premises, not our emotive psychology.

I am genuinely puzzled by this, because it sounds like the sort of anti-intellectualism I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board — Srap Tasmaner

This doesn't mean anti-intellectualism. This means you must agree with me, not question me, not challenge me, in order to be considered an intellectual.

Of course it says a lot that the zealot for 'reason' here is indulging in a couple of totally fallacious appeals to authority while offering about as much substantive critique as an empty juice box. — StreetlightX

Come now friend, you only say this because you demand the Analytical form as a bias of value. I do indeed hope you will not ban me for contradicting you, that would indeed be a tragic move for the state of philosophy on this Forum. Let emotion fall to the side, nothing is personal here. We must let this form hang in the balance for the sake of value itself. I only need here to repeat myself. Do not attack me, just deal with the premises:

'I take this to be a strong antithesis to the Analytical form: one doesn't have to use the Analytical style to arrive at truth. One doesn't have to use the Analytical form to state a true premise. Conclusion: the Analytical form must justify itself against the relevance and value of other forms. Why? Because life is exceedingly short. The Analytical form demands that truth take on a certain form in order to be considered valid or valuable, this is false, even as the Analytical Philosopher makes more use of other forms than he does his own form. He does this because his own form is lacking in real-world-value. His form is a game that is not conducive to reality.'

If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens. — JerseyFlight

This is an emotional state acting on itself transitioning into authoritarianism:

I responded to himself because he kept disrupting conversations and I wanted him to stop doing that. I tried a couple different ways of doing that -- well, they seemed different to me -- but I don't know why. It's really clear this is just an ideological thing for him, and I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked in. — Srap Tasmaner

By "disruption" one cannot mean, "that which contradicts or challenges my theology." If that is the case then we can dismiss all philosophy simply by noting that it contradicts our belief.

What all positivity longs for in the presence of negation: "I wanted him to stop doing that."

No engagement with any objection, just ad hominem dismal, hence the term, "ideological."

Two prominent professors have already been cited as advocating the same position.

"Analytic philosophers focus too much on playing with concepts, and not enough on thinking about the parts of reality that matter." Michael Huemer

Religion and politics and ethics are philosophical domains rife with emotion. Most of the problems in these domains stem from confusing their subjective "truths" with objective ones. — Harry Hindu

A most excellent point. None of us are immune from this because we are emotional beings. The point however, to speak in Hegelian terms, is to use the mediation of thought against the immediacy and mindlessness of emotion.

I take this to be a strong antithesis to the Analytical form: one doesn't have to use the Analytical style to arrive at truth. One doesn't have to use the Analytical form to state a true premise. Conclusion: the Analytical form must justify itself against the relevance and value of other forms. Why? Because life is exceedingly short. The Analytical form demands that truth take on a certain form in order to be considered valid or valuable, this is false, even as the Analytical Philosopher makes more use of other forms than he does his own form. He does this because his own form is lacking in real-world-value. His form is a game that is not conducive to reality.

Personally this risk element is what I find attractive about this forum. It makes me cautious about what I post, and sharpens my thoughts. And, as others have mentioned, being subjected to this risk, can result in surprisingly good new ideas. I feel it is extremely poor form however, and well out of order, to try to ban somebody because your personal philosophy cannot reasonably stand up to theirs. That would be school yard bullying, in my opinion, not philosophy. — Pop

What an important point! Being subjected to the dysregulation can serve to sharpen one's critical abilities. I just love this and it's so very true, it forces one to innovate.

Analytic philosophy, as I understand it, is a tonic, a roborant. It's a cure for what ails philosophy to the extent philosophy is assailed by the grotesqueries and mummeries of certain practitioners, which arise from the misuse of language — Ciceronianus the White

You are quite mistaken. Davidson's article was one of skepticism, "there is no such thing as a language." Analytical Philosophy does not bring clarity, and neither does it make real-world-progress, what it does is produce a semantic narrowing! I contend that you only think this about Analytical Philosophy because it purports to be so logical, but the way in which it is logical, ends up negating both value and relevance.

Unless one dislodges the elitist assumption, that lies at the base of this elitist position, the elitism will remain. This assumption states that one is engaged in a superior philosophy because one is engaged in a more sophisticated form. Nothing has been offered to sustain this assumption aside from the fact of the bare form itself, but no one has shown what it is that gives this form value. In the alternative form I provided, it would be nearly impossible to deny that its form produced value -- and not just an aesthetic value, but a value the goes beyond mere subjectivity -- social value.

-

What a fucking dipshit. — creativesoul

This is not a refutation.

The last forty or fifty years can characterised in terms of the application of analytic techniques to areas previously not consider part of the analytic analytic - Phenomenology, psychology and psychiatry, social theory — Banno

Examples? It's very strange you claim this, because the social sciences have moved away from idealism and into the domain of concrete observation. If one just takes the example of Neurobiology, this has nothing to do with Analytical Philosophy, it's all based on observation. And I might add, it has a thousand times more explanatory power than any of the abstraction contained in your field.

It is as if he sought to cure alcoholism by interrupting the winos on the street and smashing their bottles and beating them up. — unenlightened

You want to compare the academic elitism of Analytical Philosophy to the suffering of homeless addicts? You're claiming that you are like a poor, helpless Analytical Philosopher who is being physically beat and needs to be saved? I do indeed have a problem with this, and so should everyone else. I don't even know what to say.

Yes, I agree. You are correct. I was just trying to qualify, to be thorough, because I know the fallacy of calling something an ad hominem when it's not comes into play. Defense and denial will use any trick at their disposal to retain the comfort of their belief.

I think it's best just to stick with Davidson. Just tell me about the value of his essay? This is all I really care about. Or tell me about the value of Analytical Philosophy in general? Life is exceedingly short, and I know of all kinds of tremendously valuable forms of communication scattered throughout the social sciences, Analytical Philosophy is not one of them. You show me what you can draw from Davidson, and I will show you what I have drawn from Perry and Szalavitz. This approache cuts through the abstraction and forces these forms to produce content. I call your bluff, now it's time to show your hand.

He has defended all statues, including the statues of the first African American regiment, abolitionists, and Frederick Douglass. He wants MLK, Harriot Tubman, Booker T Washington, Frederick Douglass, Jackie Robinson in his “heroes park”. — NOS4A2

Have you ever heard of politics? Do you know how they work? Have you ever heard of manipulation? Do you know what it means to be politically naive? Tell me what Trump has done wrong? Has he done anything wrong according to you?

These are the actions of a racist president? — NOS4A2

No, these are the actions of a political president.

I have noticed a turn towards more of this kind of ad hom also, and I think good practice would be to label it, also a third party. If we see someone ad homming in this way, even if they are doing it to a poster we disagree with or has their own basket of fallacies, we should label it out and demand they make a case, critique a position, support their own position. — Coben

Yes, I agree, but a qualification is in order: people claim ad hominem all the time and it's not a case of ad hominem.

"Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the abusive argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy. The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not ad hominem attacks."

In other words, someone can call me an idiot, and just so long as it is not meant as a refutation, evasion, poisoning of the well, then it wouldn't be an ad hominem, it could be abusive, but it could also be true, it just depends. Sometimes name calling can be justified, like when I say, Donald Trump is an idiot. This is actually an accurate statement based on his vast social ignorance.

I am more worried about people like you and others that want to silence the ideas of other people just because the don't like them. — Sir2u

Pardon me. This is not my position. I don't want to silence them, I just don't want them to get special treatment like you want to give them. They make the claim they incur the criticism, no one needs to be jumping in (people like yourself) with this charismatic defense of error.

other then instituting some rules of engagement or such. — Pop

I think the moderators just need to be aware of the fact that philosophy offends people because it refutes their positivity, and not seek to ban people merely because other people are getting emotional and offended. That is not a good enough reason. A skilled debater doesn't need to call people names, he can dislodge his opponent from the basis of his own premises. But this is enough, people get super emotional when this happens. They just can't believe it, and so they do the first thing that comes natural, try to demonize the person who is refuting them, to cast them in a negative light, as a villain, as a fiend, as a fanatic. Anything to sustain their denial and sense of identity which is attached to their belief.

I come from a school of hyper critical thinkers known as critical theory (not literary theory). They would walk circles around the philosophers on this forum, I am but a novice in this domain. Critical theorists are usually well read in three separate areas: Philosophy, Psychology and Social Theory, which often includes economics as well as aesthetics. Adorno, for example, was studying Kant at the age of 16 with a highly distinguished German professor. Critical theorists are the most skilled thinkers I have encountered because they are not limited to one sphere of thought, whereas, American Philosophers, most specifically, Analytical Philosophy, is massively insecure because it only knows how to navigate a very small world of suffocating abstraction. What is missing is dialectic, what is missing is an understanding of social systems. Because critical theorists have this expanded, dialectical comprehension, it makes them exceedingly skilled in the realm of polemics. If you look at Habermas, for example, his arguments range through every field, from Analytical Philosophy, to Continental Philosophy, Sociology, Linguistics, Law, Marxism and more. Critical theory is not one-sided, it's dialectical. One must learn very quickly how to pass through systems and arguments without getting caught up in emotion. It's not personal, it's just critical. The point is to arrive at a comprehension of contextualized value. One could even call it, a systemic value.

I'm saying that, for the most part, it's not worth the effort of engaging; they won't be convinced to change their minds, so you'll just be wasting your own precious time arguing against a brick wall. — Pfhorrest

Who said anything about changing their minds? I specifically mentioned the context: many people read these threads. Further, the criteria for refuting error is not that one must liberate the preachers of error, but that one stops them from doing damage in the public sphere.

If some people do want to spend the time to give a quick rebuttal for the sake of onlookers, then that is valuable — Pfhorrest

Here you refute yourself, and in the same instance, affirm the value of refutation, at the same time you speak condescendingly of those who are doing a thing you confess to be of "value?"

I'm saying that threads like this complaining about the existence of shallow unreasoning religious people are little better. — Pfhorrest

What's the complaint based on, error? If not then how can a thread based on value be "little better" than a thread based on error?

This is true of Analytic philosophy for neglecting the experiential/embodies/practical side, but it's also true of Continental philosophy for neglecting the mathematical/ideal/linguistic side. — Pfhorrest

I am not talking about Analytical Philosophy versus Continental Philosophy. I am talking about forms of communication and real world value in contrast to Analytical communication. Neither am I claiming that mathematics or linguistics are not important, but these are not Analytical Philosophy. Analytical Philosophy might have their own questions they like to ask of these disciplines, but I am specifically referring to Analytical Philosophy. This thread was taken from a thread on Donald Davidson. Please go read the paper by Davidson and come back here and report on its value. I am open and ready to hear it.

I'm as anti-religious as they come and I think threads like this one are just as low-quality and (for lack of a better word) disruptive as the shallow little-reasoning religious threads are. — Pfhorrest

Excuse me. Lots of people read these threads, some of them very likely, impressionable young people, are you claiming that a person is doing something wrong by criticizing religious error? You are here calling it "shallow," "little-reasoning," and comparing it to the irrationality of religion. Based on what, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I generally think the best solution to that kind of problem is to ignore it — Pfhorrest

For the most part I agree, but this is not finalized. Sometimes this can be cowardice, being afraid to offend people, at other times it can be an evasion of responsibility. Notice: you confess that it's error, and then say, "well, just let it be," and further, you say, "I will not stand up to those who speak error, but I will stand up to those who speak out against error." This strikes me as backward conformity.

You charged the original poster with, "If you get upset by them I think it says more about you and your agenda than theirs."

To test the accuracy of this statement I asked you several questions, none of which you answered. What you fail to see is that your bias (and that's what it is) is bent uncritically in favor of religion. If this was not the case then why not say this position is equally true of Nazis? It's because your cultural stance on Nazis is entirely negative, while you live too far apart from (cannot comprehend) the historical atrocities of religion.

Maybe we can drive the point home more. Suppose some fanatics from Isis wanted to come on here and start talking about Allah, would you still claim, "If you get upset by them I think it says more about you and your agenda than theirs." ?

I don't think so. Why? Because you live in a time when you can see the dogmatic violence of Isis, understanding the dangers of religion requires more than your immediate impression. Suppose someone from Isis came on here long before they starting pillaging and mass murdering, what an ignorant fool you would look like right now.

I'm going to make a single point and then leave you to your crusade. — Srap Tasmaner

If we're going to be analytical, you made more than a single point.

Bertrand Russell... He was also a prominent antiwar activist among many other things. — Srap Tasmaner

Michael Dummett, one of the most prominent philosophers in the analytic tradition essentially suspended his professional work for a few years to campaign for immigrants' rights and racial equality. — Srap Tasmaner

And these things have value, right?

And these activities are not Analytical Philosophy, right?

In fact, one must forsake Analytical Philosophy in order to pursue them, right?

Were Russell and Dummett wise to forsake Analytical Philosophy to pursue these things?

The point of these examples and of the Tarski quote I posted isn't that analytic philosophy can save the world, but that we don't need you to tell us the world is on fire. — Srap Tasmaner

My argument is not about the world being on fire, but that Analytical Philosophy is lacking in value, that it's a personal hobby. My argument is also that it's just one form of communication, and when we view it as a form of communication among many forms of communication, we can see that it comes out at a very low place in terms of relevance and real world value.

Seriously, is there any way to compare a bunch of hyped up bible blathers to the nazis? — Sir2u

Inquisitions.

That doesn't answer my question. You said his criticism of religion is a negative mark against him. I would like to know, does this also apply to people who are critical of Nazis? What about the Peoples Temple? What about Aum Shinrikyo? What about Heaven's Gate? What about Branch Davidians? What about the Order of the Solar Temple?

If you get upset by them I think it says more about you and your agenda than theirs. — Sir2u

Is this equally true of Nazis?

In any case why are you seeking to make this about me, rather than addressing my arguments? — Janus

Not at all. Read more carefully next time: 'has conditioned you to come at me the way you are...' This is a reference to your approach, your method.

To say Analytic Philosophy is nothing but "empty ideas that lead nowhere" is a dogmatic pronouncement — Janus

That's what Peter Unger argued in his Oxford book against Analytical Philosophy. It's even titled, "Empty Ideas."

This is no better than religious puritanism which arrogates to itself the right to declare what has value and what doesn't for others. — Janus

If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens.

Training in Analytic Philosophy may sharpen the critical intellect — Janus

In what sense does it sharpen it? Unto what end? Unto what purpose? Every critical thinking book I have read in my life has been vastly superior to the analytical philosophy I have encountered. Critical thinking is far more efficient.

Mostly Spinoza, the German Idealists, Heidegger, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, some Peirce, some James, some Dewey, some Frankfurt School, a smattering of Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze, bits and pieces of Zizek, — Janus

Only Wittgenstein would be considered an analytical philosopher from this list.

A highly emotional state will illicit a highly emotional response. Not that it is a justified response, but it is a typically human response. — Pop

Yes, I agree with you. Further, this "affect regulation" capacity and origin has been studied at length by psychology. Super important area of knowledge.

The difficulty, as I see it, is in separating emotion from reason. — Pop

Good topic, but different from the one here.