|
i got the problem and pretty much solve it but i dont know how to explain since i never got used to sides mentioned in the op tho i am aware of their meaning. sadly salvation is beyond both ways of descripting and defining values.
|
I feel that both schools of thought have something to contribute. I prefer some things about Analytical Philosophy and other things about Continental Philosophy. I wish people wouldn't get caught up in this argument. Take what you like from both sides. That's what I do.
|
On December 10 2010 04:50 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote:
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies. I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
Being old does not entail being legitimate.
It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative.
|
On December 11 2010 11:51 Dystisis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 04:50 pfods wrote:On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote:
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies. I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic. Being old does not entail being legitimate. It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative.
Epistemology doesn't solve a problem because it IS the problem. It's trying to solve itself.
As for the language bit, you're just being pedantic. If you think philosophy is anything but a use of language and semantics, you're fooling yourself.
|
On December 11 2010 12:08 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 11:51 Dystisis wrote:On December 10 2010 04:50 pfods wrote:On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote:
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies. I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic. Being old does not entail being legitimate. It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative. Epistemology doesn't solve a problem because it IS the problem.
Well said. Epistemology isn't meant to "solve a problem."
|
That opinion was valid like 30 years ago but currently epistemology and metaphysics are the leading disciplines in analytic philosophy. Analysing language is always good but it will just give you a conceptual overview nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
