3 ms·
> "a mass of meaningless, incoherent, poetic mumbo-jumbo". Also: are new developments of analytic philosophy really that "clear" in their language? Usually, no
by kome 9y ago
> "a mass of meaningless, incoherent, poetic mumbo-jumbo".
Also: are new developments of analytic philosophy really that "clear" in their language? Usually, no. For example, is Saul Kripke really that "meaningful, coherent and logical" or he is just developing his own jargon?
In my opinion, analytic philosophy often tries to be rigorous with concepts that just are not rigorous to begin with. And they just end up by creating an "ordinate mess".
- philwelch 9y agoI haven’t read a ton of Kripke, but the fender and more jargon-filled analytic philosophy is still in a different style. I think the best oversimplification is that analytic philosophers are more like mathematicians and continental philosophers are more like artists and poets. (And, fittingly, many of the foundational analytic philosophers were also mathematicians, and the continentals, poets and playwrights.)