Why not ask /sci/ ?

The line between analytic philosophy and science is literally non-existent.

>>909106
>asking STEMlords for philosophical insight

ayy

>>909102
I have. I am generally not a fan of analytic philosophy, but one research program that I think has borne fruit is metaethics. I believe the greatest insights in this field have come from non-cognitivists. Non-cognitivists argue, basically, that moral discourse is not a truth-seeking discourse. This is a great insight because it moves us past the useless question of, "what moral system is correct?" to the real moral question: "what shall we do?"

>>909151
Can you elaborate on the resurgence of metaphysics in the field?

>>909193
I don't have much to say about it. I suppose a lot of it is due to developments in modal logic by Kripke and the metaphysical work of david lewis. these led to a lot of renewed attempts at fundamental metaphysics of the sort attempted by early analytics like russell. I'm not at all a fan of this new Lewisian style metaphysics.

>>909193

To add a further and more specific point to the one made by >>909214

Over the last ten years there's been a resurgence of an even grander, more traditional kind of metaphysics due to the (re)introduction of an neo-Aristotelian concept called Grounding, which is a kind of acasual determination. If you're interested in modern analytic metaphysics, I highly recommend you look into it, especially the work of Jonathan Schaffer.

Personally, I think it's bullshit and a fad. But it's an interesting bullshit fad which, if it turns out to work, would reintroduce a lot of lines of inquiry to analytic philosophy that it has previously excluded.

>>909151
Didn't we already go through this with Genealogy of Morality a century ago?

>>909290
hard to say. it requires some heavy duty interpretive work to translate Nietzsche's positions into the language of current debates in analytic philosophy. certainly moral anti-realism is nothing new. non-cognitivism as a position exists in the context of linguistic-turn philosophy and current approaches to conceptual analysis, which heavily rely on formal semantics (for better or worse). But I think these analyses have been very illuminating. I recommend Wise Choices Apt Feelings as an intro to this work.

>>909247
Why do you think it's bullshit?

>>909247
Schaffer looks fascinating thanks m8

>>909290
Because Jews highjacked Nietzscheanism for a left-wing agenda.

>>909106
Dogmatism is pretty much the direct opposite of science.

>>909417
Since when did Nietzchianism drop the idea that morality is a human invention? Even the leftist Nietzsche philosophers follow this mode of thinking.

>>909342

Because any further explanation of what grounding relations are supposed to constitute is incredibly thin and vague at best, and nearly none existent at worst. What's more, it's difficult to provide examples of it that are uncontroversially something in need of further explanation.
Part of this might just be down to the fact it's a new avenue of inquiry, and perhaps in ten years these worries will have been dealt with. A lot of the work seems to actually proceed with the assumption that this work will at some point be done. I'm just not sure that cheque will ever get cashed.

>>909627
Okay, cool. thank you, as well as the other anons itt, for giving me actual non-meme answers. I just started Schaffer