No, Diogenes was.

>>25632321
why is diogenes a redditor??? that makes no sense at all

the apostle Paul

>>25632329
Maybe it has something to do with flippancy and finding humor in public masturbation? There were apparently thousands of Diogenes stories floating about in Antiquity because rhetoric students had to compose new ones as an exercise, but all we know about is the open stroking

An oddity of our garrulous species is the babbling period of late infancy

>>25632332
Retard

>>25632329
Probably because of him being a massive chungus meme

>>25632308
books?

>>25632308
It was Epicurus

>>25632308
What did he mean by common sense? Is anyone in this thread going to explain it to me? Why would he have said something like that, and in what context?

>>25632308
He was a staunch empiricist (in his special sense) and denied popular spirituality: he launched, or was in any case strongly associated with, some conference aimed at aligning popular belief with science, so, yes, sounds pretty reddit. But he was not reddit in being powerful enough to determine the course of north American, and through his student Davidson, British, philosophy for the generation after his.

He also thought philosophy was continuous with science. I'm not aware of his beliefs re: common sense (this apparently excludes the sense, once commonly made, of religious platitudes), but I imagine he thought these were also part of the "web of belief" which is partly constituted by science and philosophy etc.

>>25633258
It's the thing that lets billions of people survive irregardlessly of their cognitive abilities thanks to the osmosis process.

>>25633700
he's from Akron, close to where I live.

>>25634410
cool

Protagoras was the first to say idiotic things with confidence and plausible deniability.

>>25633700
>>25632308
I don’t see how someone with his education and skill set could come up with such a sloppy Philosophy.

Personally I think Pericles was the first Redditor. Kind of a lazy sloppy ideology full of pandering and hypocrisy and always appealing to science but never actually caring about it or understanding it. All the while just corrupt and secretly paying Sparta tribute not to attack and end the whole farce

>>25635529
What was sloppy about it? It was, for many, pathbreaking. He introduced the problem of radical translation which, again through Davidson, became the driving issue for a generation of anglophone philosophers.
What is difficult about his philosophy, and has since been accepted by few, is his intense "naturalism", viz. his belief that the sciences--broadly construed, involving not just physics, etc, but psychology, economics, even history, and, in the extreme, common sense (the only difference between the paradigmatic sciences (physics) and this last being that the "scientist is more careful [with his use] of evidence")--form our only relation to reality. The only way we can learn about reality is through external evidence jointly available to multiple observers. This starting point of his is incredible, but what he says in light of it is not sloppy. To my mind at least.

Whenever I read Analytic philosophy it’s like they’re trying to reinvent the wheel and simply repeat very old errors, often presocratic. I like Continental philosophy more because it is continuous with the past. Analytics come across as smug and arrogant, too.

>>25635563
They repeat presocratic errors? Either a very profound, or totally useless, thing to say. Example?

>"These people are so smug" he said smugly

>>25635573
Crass materialism, the materialism of the physiologists who reduce everything to a sort of matter. Relativism a la Protagoras, analytics openly admire the sophists. Not hard, anon.

>>25635554
It’s basically giving up philosophy and saying scientists have it figured out since Einstein can predict lensing. It’s absurd and doesn’t really solve a problem of philosophy so much as pretend they don’t exist in favor of trying to defend science

>>25635653
Still no examples.

>>25635674
There are obvious examples anon don’t be dense. Here’s a bonus for you: what Wittgenstein says about definitions and “family resemblances” is retroactively refuted by Aristotle for whom nominal definitions (“what’s the Thing or Things these definienda have in common????”) merely signify essence. A verbal formula is not an essence, indeed it cannot be an essence. That’s three cases I’ve given you now would you like more?

>>25635686
It is a big stretch to class W as an analytic philosopher. It is an even bigger stretch to attribute to W, the later W especially, any substantive doctrine. (Family resemblances are introduced as a metaphor, just as the structure of atomic states of affairs are described via metaphor in the Tractatus.) If you had any experience of current anglophone philosophy you would know this.
Here is an interesting example for you, one you might have used if you knew anything about current analytic Wittgenstein scholarship: Irad Kimhi's Thinking and Being. Kimhi thinks that there is no gap between judging p and judging that judgement to be true - they are elements of the same momentary consciousness. This is a lesson he takes to have first been taught by Parmenides, survived through Kant into Hegel, but was lost with Frege, thereby analytic philosophers at large, even while surviving in (rediscovered by) the early, anti-Fregean, Wittgenstein.
You are still yet to mention any analytic philosophers by name. FWIW I'm no analytic fanboy, I just wanted you to flesh out your criticism.

>>25635737
Interesting post but you continue to string me along with retarded “nuh uh”s (W wasn’t ackshually analytic!) I really don’t read much analytic philosophy I just know Russell’s History is dogshit, Moore’s Refutation is humiliatingly retarded, W is overrated, and every bit of “analytic wisdom” that reaches my hobbyist ears sounds fucking stupid. What about Parmenides involves judging p vs judging that I am judging p? Absolutely nothing. In Kant and Hegel as well this is a non-issue, you would have to retardedly rip lines out of context to get to this and I’m sure that’s what you will do for your next post.

>>25635755
>judging that judgment to be true
Fix’d

>>25635755
It's difficult to argue, in a word, how and why W isn't, really, an analytic philosopher. He was there as the tradition began, but the key work in the movement, Russell's and Moore's (as you point out), their revolt against idealism, had already been done. Suffice it to say, maybe, that those philosophers dedicated as exegetes of Wittgenstein take the standing of his philosophy (his 'style') to be a central issue, unlike those writing on analytic philosophers. (There is also, by the by, no consensus on a 'standard reading' of either of Wittgenstein's masterworks. Something one might expect from an analytic philosopher, who, qua analytic philosopher, is supposed to value clarity of expression above all else.) Have you heard of Stanley Cavell? He was a remarkable, singular, Wittgensteinian 'literary' philosopher. The 'value' of philosophy, especially analytic, was his primary concern.

As for Parmenides, he wrote, in his On Nature, that "truth and being are one", hence one cannot judge p to be true, without also knowing that judgement to be true, since truth reaches right to the reality (being) of things. (In PI W calls this a "paradox": one cannot judge (his example) King's College to be on fire, if it is not actually on fire, since there is nothing 'there' to be judged. This is the motivating paradox of truth, one sidestepped by most analytic philosophers.) This is not the case for Frege, who began the now orthodox view of propositional truth among analytic philosophers. It is also a primary doctrine in Kant, his "unity of apperception". I hope you have heard of it. I can't speak with authority on Hegel. Consult the book if you are interested; it is a fantastic short book, justly famous.

If you still believe I've retardedly ripped lines out of context then you just don't know much about these philosophers.

After writing this I've just remembered Sebastian Rodl's Introduction to Absolute Idealism, in which the central doctrine, as I've heard it spoken about, is the identity between judging p and judging that judgement to be true. Consult that, if you care, I guess. The book has also shot to fame, among analytic philosophers, recently.

>>25635801
> As for Parmenides, he wrote, in his On Nature, that "truth and being are one", hence one cannot judge p to be true, without also knowing that judgement to be true, since truth reaches right to the reality (being) of things
You are still importing a foreign concern into Parmenides. You say to say the one is to say the other but it isn’t so. There is no concern with “reflexivity” and its puzzles in Parmenides, he is really quite simple.
> Kant, his "unity of apperception". I hope you have heard of it. I
I’ve read the Critique of Pure reason countless times, I am reading it now in German. Yes I have heard of the unity of apperception dipshit, now do you know the difference between empirical and transcendental apperception? No, you do not, you are conflating them here. Transcendental apperception is the eye that cannot see itself, it is prior to any and all judgments.
> After writing this I've just remembered Sebastian Rodl's Introduction to Absolute Idealism, in which the central doctrine, as I've heard it spoken about, is the identity between judging p and judging that judgement to be true
I’ve read quite a lot of Schelling and Hegel and it sounds like he’s force-reading a properly analytic concern into idealism.

You seem like an okay guy anon but you really have annoyed me and ruined my supper. You cite a lot but I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

>>25635821
Okay, farewell. I am confident in what I have said. I have published on Wittgenstein and Kant. You set the tone for this, by the way, with your bland polemic against analytic philosophy. Sorry for your supper.

>>25632308
His Magee appearance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnhUzp1txtk

>>25635801
I personally think your analysis is crap. Permenides and Russell don’t even think in the same way and any idea they’re discussing similar thoughts and ideas is purely coincidental.
Yes Frege had propositional truth but that’s within the system if mathematical Philosophy which is itself a response to Kant and ultimately Hume.
It’s an analytic truth.
Permenides didn’t have an analytic synthetic distinction nor thoughts of truth and coherence. He’s using the terms in a completely different context and one that is inherently less precise.


It’s as useless as saying Hegel is just repackaged Aristotelianism. You can make a case based on superficial similarities but they’re just not talking the same way.

Also Russell considered W to be his successor. Wittgenstein is analytic simple as.

>>25635573
Zeno's paradoxes; Protagoras Man is the Measure; Materialism; that knowledge is justified belief... — everything already refuted in Plato's Theaetetus and Sophist.
Various retarded forms of infinite regresses.

>>25637147
Or nominalism refuted in Plato's Cratylus and Parmenides (makes communication impossible, but we are communicating, ergo nominalism is false).

>>25637111
I was rehearsing the argument of the book I brought up, as an example of the sort of thing you might have done, fuckwad. Besides, you disagreeing with me here contravenes your initial point, the spark of this whole argument. What are you even saying? I asked you to give an example (one would have done) of an analytic philosopher repeating the mistakes of a presocratic.

W is not an analytic philosopher, and if he is, it is only the most tenuous attribution. Like I said, only familiarity with the literature on him will convince you of this. The fact of his early association with Russell ignores the facts that he told Russell (& Moore) that he'd never understand the Tractatus (he eviscerated Russell's introduction) & that he understood nothing of the PI. (You want more facts about Russell's relationship with W? Just ask. I have many ready to go, all unfavourable to you.)

And, even if he was, the example you gave, of Family Resemblance being 'refuted' by Aristotle does no justice to the reason of that concept's (if it is one) employment, which is the sine qua non of Wittgenstein's introducing any device in his, first and foremost and always, therapeutic philosophy. And this is a thread on Quine, mind you.

>>25637154
Inb4 retards:
Nominalism is the denial of samness of identity/quality in multiple instances of different things (like two minds, or two objects) such as the identity of the same words in a sentence shared by two minds — aka dialectics (communication: literally 'shared unity').

>>25632308
Not a real person, but Encolpius from the Satyricon is supremely reddit.

>>25632308
Seems a reasonable enough statement. (the pictured quote)
>>>/reddit/

>>25637157
Fact remains you've just not read any analytic philosophy. You have the opinion, dull as everyone who has it, that analytic philosophy (apparently a homogenous phenomenon) is uniformly shallow for, in this case, its apparent ahistoricity. I can give you umpteen recommendations of historically versed leading analytic philosophers.