What /his/ thinks about these different ways to concieve the philosophy?
>>544155
Hello again anon, some of the mods in /lit/ are bored butthurt vengeful stuttering aspie cunts btw. Wasn't able to give you a heads up in time.
>>544168
No problem anon, I didn't knew that /his/ existed, and since in /lit/ I saw a thread that was about nietzsche, I thought "why not". This was a shitty thread anyway.
>>544155
Analytical philosophy proved that waifus exist and love us. What has engineering ever done for us?
>>544158
There is only one truth in this universe, and that is cause and effect. These two elements flow like a river; An unending link of change. Meaning is just an ambiguity and thus intrinsic to personal preference.
>>544155
The reductionism in this is fucking criminal.
>there really is a contiental divide
>Wittgenstein used 'science' in his philosophy
>All 'contential' philosophers are post-modern
>Post-modern is some how opposite to science. When they look at completly unrelated concepts
>analytics do not use literature and contientals do not use logic
>implying all philosophy is not analysis
>implying all philosophy is not reason
>implying the contental analytic divide is anything beyond semantics
>>544263
>There is only one truth in this universe, and that is cause and effect.
So deep. You've got to be trolling, please be trolling.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Just wow. Shut the fuck up you little worm. I've read hundreds of books, some of them pleb escapism true, but I've also read Plato, I've read Aristotle, Heraclitus, the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Stoics, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein. I've read comparative mythology, psychology/psychoanalysis, I've studied chemistry, drug culture, physics. I've read Goethe, Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Jung, Freud, Alan Watts, that group. I've read the Bible, the Quran, studied Gnosticism, Taoism, Buddism. I could go on. I don't think I'd even know how to begin to dismantle you piece by piece at this point your workings are so simplistic if you actually believe what you're saying.
>tl;dr
Get off this board, or at least stop posting, I will crush you like a bug.
>>544291
I just didn't found a better picture to start the thread. It's just a simple diagram, and of course tends to be reductionist. Also I don't think that theres only a continental divide between these traditions, both deal with the metaphysics in a different way, the same goes with the language. I believe that the analytics are closer to the science, and that the continentals to the culture and the art (Like heiddeger, in his thought that the poetry helps to achieve higher truths), with that i'm not saying that an analytics will not have interest in art or culture, and the same goes with the continentals, that they wouldn't have to underestimate the sciences.
Of course there are philosophers that tries to join these two traditions, or that uses both, like Wittgenstein with his first and second period. But both traditions have their discrepancies, like rationalism and empiricism in their time.
>>544530
>But both traditions have their discrepancies, like rationalism and empiricism in their time
And the fact that this is wrong is the reason no one takes the divide seriously. Quin basically showed us that basic assumptions about 'analytics' like that were wrong. There simply isn't any good reason to even use the terms 'analytic' and 'continental' there is no way to really divide them up. It's an arbtiary word used by people that fail to understand basic concepts of philosophy.
>>544322
3/10 copy of the navy seal oasta prefer the Buddhist one
