> how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy Which is especially damning when analytic philosophy seems to be stuck in an ossified understanding of lo

> how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy Which is especially damning when analytic philosophy seems to be stuck in an ossified understanding of logic and the kind of rigorous arguments used in mathematics. A response to analytic philosophy from mathematics can be found in Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics [1]. I enjoyed the book quite a bit but I do have a math background so I don't know how accessible it is for a layperson or even a professional philosopher that isn't familiar with contemporary math. The philosophical arguments weren't hard to follow for me though and I'm by no means steeped in philosophy. A response to analytic philosophy from contemporary logic can be found in the work of Jean-Yves Girard. In particular, the opposition of syntax/semantics is criticized. Girard prefers to treat proofs as mathematical objects in of themselves, i.e. realizability. See The Blind Spot [2] and if you read French, [3] is a non-technical explanation of his post-classical logical ideas. [1] https://www.urbanomic.com/book/synthetic-philosophy-of-contemporary-mathematics/ https://www.urbanomic.com/book/synthetic-philosophy-of-conte... [2] https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-blind-spot-lectures-on-logic https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/the-blind-spot-lecture... [3] http://www.editions-allia.com/fr/livre/749/le-fantome-de-la-transparence http://www.editions-allia.com/fr/livre/749/le-fantome-de-la-...