>not enjoying dank analytic metaphysics
>shitting on metaphysics while simultaneously pretending not to be a positivist
Step it up plebeians. I see right through you.
>>8261252
>implying this is dank analytic metaphysics
>>8261320
>implying it isn't
>>8261329
Nah man, this is far from the dankest of analytic metaphysics.
>>8261335
What is the dankest analytic metaphysics then
>>8261335
Kripke is quite a dank analytic metaphysicist, tho
>>8261349
I agree that Lewis and Sider are fairly dank, but what is it about Kripke that doesn't necessarily (hehe) tickle you?
imo AJ Ayer is the dankest analytic philosopher
also dank:
Feyerabend
Kuhn
Lakatos
>>8261389
can you pick someone who mattered after WW2 pls
>>8261403
about Ayer? not at all.
he makes effective arguments for logical positivism, and (for me) sets the bar for rational, thoroughgoing attention to those arguments. many philosophers have a lot to learn from his means of engagement. he draws out the necessity for establishing a common means of ascertaining the subjects of our arguments.
I'm not a positivist, I can simply recognize good philosophy when I see it. and Ayer is the good shit.
>>8261420
Thomas Kuhn
Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds is about the dankest of the dank in terms of analytic metaphysics, lads.
>>8261427
How do you verify the statement that "only verifiable statements are meaningful"?
Why do new age hippies get so reactively over-protective and defensive about their ... whatever it is they think they're "doing"?
>>8261763
t. Hempel
>>8261772
wat
>tfw u have no idea what anyone ITT ia talking about
>>8263301
Now just pretend that you do understand everything and that's what metaphysics is all about.
>>8261763
I know this sounds radical on /lit/ of all places... but it's worth it to read the book and find out just what Ayer was getting at with verificationism.
How do I learn the level of math and logic I need to appreciate the major mainstream works of 20th century analytic philosophy
Every time I try to figure out how to learn logic I end up reading a 37 page sales pitch for learning modal logic so I can write AI computer programs
>>8261763
Wasn't that the problem with the Tractatus too?
L, T & T is a good read.
>>8264428
No, because Wittgenstein (depending on who you read) anchored sense in showing what he thought was logical space. Hence the halt to the regress isn't a proposition, it is 'how things are'.
Great attempt, but bogus
>>8264420
Textbooks. No, just kidding.
>>8264446
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. Just asking a question. I haven't read much analytic philosophy.
What do you mean by "halt to the regress"?
And who would you recommend reading for a good interpretation of the Tractatus?
>>8264450
I am fine with textbooks. I'm just saying it's hard to find one that covers the right material, or to know what the right material is.
>>8264455
You misread me. Wittgenstein's attempt was great, but bogus (he wasn't successful).
Wittgenstein knew that foundationalism was false, but what if you could halt the explanatory regress not in some self justifying proposition, but by demonstrating it HAD to be the case? That is, by showing the world was such and such the case.
Importantly, Wittgenstein was not a positivist, for there 'is the mystical that shows itself' which can be reduced to propositions.
This is according to one of the three major views on the book.
>>8264476
>not reading the Tractatus resolutely
way to chicken out
>>8264428
No. The logical positivists based many of their ideas on the Tractatus, but ultimately they diverged from Wittgenstein in that Witt accepted quietism and they did not (i.e. were analytic to the point of absurdity).
Do I win?
I think, therefore I am.
Therefore what enables me to think, also is.
Taking Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Wittgenstein's work into account.
Does this mean that we can not be certain of our knowledge of what enables us to be.
Or did I prove nothing?
>>8261252
TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...
>>8264849
Ha.
