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.

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.

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.

No, I consider these 'invalid' because 'the analytical form' corresponds to nothing but an incoherent fantasy that exists nowhere but in your head. Ironically, not unlike the present king of France.

It was not a defense, rather a series of question. What type of discourse is appropriate (or inappropriate) on a board such as this one, according to you?

I'm trying to figure out your position, your critique.

From my position, all philosophers are not necessarily nice people. Some of them I dispise. But this is not out of anti-intellectualism, it is just because I happen to care for what philosophers actually do and contribute to society.

For example, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Derida have done more harm than good to society with their thinking, in my view. Because their thinking was wrong and yet people adhered to it.

They might have been very polite, so if you judge by that, they were good guys, but their words did some damage nevertheless, in my judgment.

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?

Analytic philosophy, I think, hasn't really been a thing for some time now. — Srap Tasmaner

Was it ever a thing? Is "analytic philosophy" a meaningful and useful designation? I think philosophers tend to answer in the negative. (And the same with "continental philosophy.")

It has a multitude of styles and approaches. Davidson being as different from Sellars as different from Anscombe as different from Nussbaum as different from Cracy as different from the Chruchlands. And each different among themselves, no less.

(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.

From my position, all philosophers are not necessarily nice people. — Olivier5

See, now an example of a sweeping generalization would be "All philosophers are nice people", and you know that would be an indefensible thing to say.

It sounded to me like you said the great bulk of philosophy written in English in the last century was

a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work — Olivier5

I'm not being super-subtle here. We're just talking about things a lot of grown-ups learn to quit doing, and you'd hope pretty much everyone who thinks a good use of their free-time is talking about philosophy: you don't make sweeping generalizations, you don't impugn people's motives without some reason, and you don't indulge in anti-intellectual bias when you're talking philosophy of all things.

Nothing fancy. This is basic stuff.

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

Big shrug. I think it was kind of a thing early in the 20th. I think Russell thought it was what he might defend against ordinary language philosophy.

I tend to go with the broad usage that it's the overlapping strands that run from Russell & Moore up through, I don't know, the seventies. There's room in their for lots of isms including a notable strain of pragmatism that ebbs and flows. It feels like that begins to change around the time of Rorty and Cavell at least. That's when the writing first feels post-analytic to me.

Yes, 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.

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.

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.

You demonstrate exactly what I've been saying, a bias for the Analytical Form — JerseyFlight

I literally do not know what you mean by this. Is "Analytical Form" a term some people use? I just don't know what it means.

And again I wasn't defending my tribe or anything. You could go to any (pre-covid) college campus and if you found some freshmen or sophomores who actually like thinking and talking sitting around thinking and talking, you'd probably hear one of them say, "No, come on, man, you're overgeneralizing."

This is like kindergarten stuff I'm talking about. Nothing fancy.

I responded with an argument and evidence demarcating the Analytical Form — JerseyFlight

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

It sounded to me like you said the great bulk of philosophy written in English in the last century was

a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work
— Olivier5

I'm not being super-subtle here. — Srap Tasmaner

Quite true, that last bit.

My ire is aimed at the fakes only, or those I consider fake, not to all AP (assuming this is a meaningful category). So that's one distinction. There is also a big difference between 20th century English-speaking philosophers and AP. Granted that the two sets overlap quite a bit but it's not an equivalence.

I don't know if Searle is considered AP but I like him a lot. Popper is Austrian (like Wittgenstein) but wrote much in English, and he is a favorite of mine... So no, no sweeping generalization is due. But they ARE some poseurs, yes, and I listed a few I believe are poseurs, including a French guy and a German...

We're cool, you can get down your high horse now.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Analytical philosophy conducts conceptual investigations, specifically into linguistic, idealistic logical structures. — JerseyFlight

Word salad pretending to be meaningful speech.

Oh yes, I see.

No, I wasn't at all saying that whether it's true or not it's not "acceptable" and that whether it's acceptable is more important. Of course not.

A lot of people over the age of, I don't know, 16, tend to avoid sweeping generalizations without considerable evidence because they usually turn out to be false. See, that's a generalization but I'm pretty comfortable with it, because all you have to do is think about what kind of evidence you'd have to accumulate to support a claim like "Canadians are nicer than Americans" or "Black people are lazy" and you quickly realize this is not an idea you're readily going to have enough evidence to support. That makes it an idea you probably shouldn't trust and certainly one you shouldn't promote.

Similarly for impugning the motives of people you don't even know. @Olivier5's opinion is that Hegel was a poseur. That strikes me as idiotic whether Hegel's your guy or not.

There was just nothing especially analytic or jesus even all that philosophical about my complaint. It's the common sense of grown-ups.

We can at least expect that much in a forum devoted to philosophy, can't we?

Word salad pretending to be meaningful speech. — StreetlightX

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

That makes four shitty, meaningless salad dishes. Presumably you have a point besides enumeration?

Is this the Trump method of truth telling? Say and cite it enough and it becomes so?

It's the common sense of grown-ups. — Srap Tasmaner

Asserting that your view is "grown-up" is like an exercise in self-justification. One merely needs to go to your thread of Plato to see your Analytical Philosophical style. There is nothing controversial here. Further, I have been very specific. These conversations began with my criticism of Davidson. If there is no general category of Analytical Philosophy then why does the category exist, more importantly, on what basis do you make a complaint against philosophical style, "anti-intellectualism" and the like, which you have done to me several times? Can you not see that a great deal of your objections amount to form and style? In other words, if philosophers don't want to analyze things in terms of the linguistic logical structure, then you should be content with this and simply validate it as an alternative approach. But this is not what you do, you authoritate that it is both wrong and invalid and constitutes a violation of philosophical authenticity. This is the presumption that motivates your authoritarian rebukes.

Olivier5's opinion is that Hegel was a poseur. That strikes me as idiotic whether Hegel's your guy or not. — Srap Tasmaner

And that strikes as a bit naïve, if you don't mind me saying so.

1. Since there's been trade, there's been fake trade. Pliny the Elder wrote about it, how the guys in Puntland could mix up and fake their frankincense for instance.

2. Philosophy is a trade and always has been. There's money and power in it, however small at present.

3. Therefore, it's to be expected that at least some philosophers may have sold snake oil.

That is to say, there is no reason to believe that all philosophers are intellectually honest. There are only human, traders like everyone else. That's a truism, I know. But then if this is the case, does it matter? Should we be concerned about it, or is it unimportant that there be fake (disingenuous) philosophy out there?

The answer to that question depends on whether one thinks philosophy is important or not. Also on whether one believes in "fair trade" as some sort of public good, à la Kant.

I believe in philosophy as a serious and useful trade. That's all. And all trades have their freewheelers and fakers.

I think a serious problem in philosophical discourse is that individuals feel like their intelligence is being attacked when their belief is being attacked. In my experience Analytical Philosophers are exceedingly intelligent, most especially in terms of comprehension. I would think all of the people I have had extended discourse with on this Forum are smarter than me, but that doesn't mean their program is one of relevance or that their beliefs are accurate. We all have to continually challenge our beliefs in this sense. I think there's a good rule here, where there is pain and psychological defensiveness, that's usually the direction we need to go.

For example, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Derida have done more harm than good to society with their thinking, in my view. Because their thinking was wrong and yet people adhered to it.

They might have been very polite, so if you judge by that, they were good guys, but their words did some damage nevertheless, in my judgment. — Olivier5

Wittgenstein was probably the least polite philosopher you’ll ever encountered but he was bloody well not wrong. As no philosopher who has survived the decades was. Noone is totally right, but Wittgenstein was probably more right than you and me. An asshole, though.