Which kind of philosophy do you prefer?
- Analytic Philosophy
- Literary Philosophy
0
voters
“Analytic Philosophy” basically means .
You can’t say both equally. I curious as to which you prefer, and hopefully why.
I prefer analytic philosophy. Literary philosophy, when taken up by intelligent people, results in a person like Satyr. More of a poet than a thinker. So deluded that he can’t realize his opinions are run of the mill and poorly reasoned. The more articulatley these things are expressed, the more painful for the reader.
I used to be unsure about this one. Oddly, since I’ve stopped studying in an analytic philosophy department I’ve moved strongly over to the analytic side of the fence.
Really, though, I have no problem with literary philosophy; I have a problem with illogical thinking, making grand claims that are near enough meaningless and a lack of rigour and clarity in thought. I have no problem with someone putting there philosophy in a literary form when it doesn’t suffer from these defects. I can’t think of a better example of this than Kierkegaard and, in his lucid moments, Nietzsche.
I think both have their place, but I tend to prefer analytic philosophy. Literary philosophy is really good at setting a foundation, at creating a narrative but it can’t really do anything after that – and it certainly doesn’t check itself. Analytic philosophy, on the other hand, is considerably less generative but it works within the various narratives to make them tighter and ensure that they work better. Literary philosophy makes a bunch of stuff, but most of it is crap. Analytic philosophy doesn’t make much, but what survives its rigors tends to be pretty good. I’ll take quality over quantity any day.
Depends on the subject - In tackling questions deeply rooted in logic, such as the nature of logic itself, mathematics, language, game theory, etc… here analytic philosophy is indispensable.
Yet confronted with questions regarding human nature, morality, and ethics, reason becomes only one consideration among many other all too human considerations, including emotions, luck, happenstance, motivation - analytic philosophy’s explanatory power in these areas is limited, with gray areas and ambiguities abound to resist such treatment.
I don’t find it surprising that the bulk of opinion tends to sway in the direction of analytic philosophy (personally, that’s what i usually prefer myself) but the fact is, i think this bias among philosophers isnt actually because literary philosophy is somehow “sloppier” or less “rigorous” on a qualitative level (though that may be what we tell ourselves in order to aggrandize our own philosophical efforts); rather i think it’s simply because it’s usually fashionable for philosophers to keep up a certain level of scientific pretensions about their work - we ought, however, to be recognizing our half-false-pretensions and arbitrary preferences for what they are, not dismissing ideas as valueless based on the form they present themselves in - i think both forms have a legitimate place . . . and are not necessarrily always mutually distinct, either . . .
metaphor and logic are just tools - this is kind of like comparing hammers and screwdrivers . . .
I think you’re right. Just because someone is working within the analytic tradition does not mean that their philosophy is going to be more rigorous. I think, though, that the dominant thrust of much analytic philosophy (the avoidance of grand claims, the limitation of the scope of philosophy) means that there is a lot less scope for sloppiness. Put it this way: someone like Hegel has a lot more to be wrong about than someone like Ayer. But Hegel and Ayer aren’t trying to do the same things. Really, it’s all down to personal preference, as you say.
For me, I like my philosophy analytic, and if I want something more literary I’ll pick up a philosophical novel rather than a work of non-fiction.
Why does it have to be a choice? Why are analysis and artifice mutually exclusive?
I guess my vote made it 50/50.
School text books extinguished my desire for analytic anything(i.e. poorly written,dry,and pedantic.)
Analytical, for sure - I agree with Smear’s reason as to why literal is not that useful in the real world…
I prefer literary philosophy. Analytical philosophy tends to be too linear for me. Then again, I’m more of a creative-type person, so there’s a bias.
Because I said so.
They’re not.
Literary philosophy is not really superior to analytical philosophy, it’s just more entertaining, convincing, appealing and attractive.
While the books from Kant seem to have been written by a robot, Nietzsche’s and Cioran’s books, for instance, are surely the product of flesh and blood human beings like me.
How philosophical.
It’s a poll…
Each has its place as a tool for understanding and learning. To prefer one over another is to prefer a screwdriver when you need a hammer. To limit yourself is to limit your tools. Limited tools make for sloppy work.
Which you have closed off as an either/or, making any reasons given loaded from the off. Plus, last time I checked this was a philosophy forum.
Holy Jesus. Calm down. I didn’t close off anything. You can pontificate about politics in this thread if you want.
I don’t know why you’re bringing politics into this. Basically, I agree with what Kriswest has said - analysis and artifice are tools and any philosopher worth their salt would employ them both. If that doesn’t constitute a valid point-of-view I fail to see the point of this thread/poll.
Valid point of view? But I agree with everything you’re saying. Is this for real or are you putting me on?