Is there a philosophy which advocates positivism to answer how things work, and moral relativism or nihilism as an answer to the questions where science and reason can't be applied (such as questions regarding morals and values)?
le winnie the pooh
Yeah, autism
>>892052
This is what early Wittgenstein and analytic tried to do until later Wittgenstein showed them how stupid the idea is, positivism is a dead field. Although even the analytics like Russel understood morality to be a relative thing. They were just trying to use positivism as a way of making relativistic statements about morality more stream-lined.
>>892253
>until later Wittgenstein showed them how stupid the idea is
Elaborate. I think Wittgenstein just went completely crazy later and discredited himself in the eyes of some. That doesn't constitute showing anything to anyone, though. And it certainly doesn't discredit the entire field of analytic philosophy, which is the only type of philosophy which is actually worthwhile.
>>892268
Wittgenstein discredited positivism which is not exactly analytic.
Having a language with no ambiguity is central to being able to express things in a postivistic sense. But that's not how language works or how thinking works.
>>892499
>>Wittgenstein discredited positivism which is not exactly analytic.
so what do you call analytic?
>>893343
Analytic is a former divide: it's a historical word now with no real definable meaning that is still relevant for contemporary philosophy.
