I don't get it. Why would you ever want to spend time mulling over what someone like BaUdRiLlArD meant when you can just read Wittgenstein or Carnap, especially when the latter two have created actually fruitful ways of dissolving philosophical problems? What philosophical solutions have continentals reached in the last 100 years?>inb4 "philosophy doesn't lead to conclusions and doesn't need to solved"Yes it does. Your favourite thinker is simply bad at it.
>>18766105Isn't analytic philosophy just math?
>>18766203A lot of it is asserting that language is problematic so there needs to be a more "analytic" approach. But ironically that desire for correction often leads to a mess that fails to present practical linguistic or mathematical arguments. Instead it tends to be something like meta-philosophy and it further separates the discussion from the tangible realities at hand.Those problems that analytic philosophy will "solve" are done so by erecting overly rigid constraints which are conveniently forgotten about after reaching a conclusion.
Philosophy is useless babble, doesn't really matter if it's analytical or continental. The only relevant analytical philosopher is Bertrand Russell because he also did math on the side
