VazScep wrote:To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Is science worth bothering with?

jamest wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Is science worth bothering with?

We should have a thread about this. Seriously. I'd start it myself, but I'm hoping to keep my gonads intact for a few more months.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

jamest wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Is science worth bothering with?

We should have a thread about this. Seriously. I'd start it myself, but I'm hoping to keep my gonads intact for a few more months.

Are you having us on, or are you actually blind to the inherent irony of asking this question in an internet forum using a computer?

VazScep wrote:
To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

VazScep wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I don't understand this move against the analytic. Could you explain?

The most classic piece of philosophical analysis is the idea that knowledge is true, justified belief. This isn't how most people use the word "know", but you will find that philosophers will insist that this is the concept (the underlying concept?). That is, until you start talking about Gettier counterexamples, which show that this analysis of knowledge is wrong. That is, until you start doing empirical surveys of people's responses to Gettier cases, and start getting the impression that whether people think it is right or wrong might vary depending on which continent you grew up on.

To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

jamest wrote:You know, I went in and out of London today by train and used several tube/underground services too. I was genuinely astounded and somewhat concerned by how many people gawk at their phones throughout a journey, completely disinterested in either their fellow passengers or environment.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

VazScep wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I don't understand this move against the analytic. Could you explain?

The most classic piece of philosophical analysis is the idea that knowledge is true, justified belief. This isn't how most people use the word "know", but you will find that philosophers will insist that this is the concept (the underlying concept?). That is, until you start talking about Gettier counterexamples, which show that this analysis of knowledge is wrong. That is, until you start doing empirical surveys of people's responses to Gettier cases, and start getting the impression that whether people think it is right or wrong might vary depending on which continent you grew up on.

To put it glibly, analytic philosophy is what you get when you take language --- that system of mouth noises humans hurl at each other --- way too seriously, and continental is what you get when you take language as something that should be constantly undermined. I'm decidedly in the latter camp.

Interesting. I would of thought this was the other way round. When you analyze some meaning it falls to pieces infinitely, hence is not to be taken too seriously. So the analytic undermines.

Paul1 wrote:
I find I usually don't question things on a philosophical level as much. Basically, if there's no evidence and logic for some given statement, nor some concrete example or experience I can repeat, or some other way of making it real - I tend to think, guiltily, that it's just a waste of time ruminating about it.

Example: What is the nature of existence? My answer: I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me.

What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?

jamest wrote:
You think that the quality and meaning of our lives hinges upon whether we have computers?

Interesting.

I guess that there was neither quality nor meaning to life until after Turing, then.