Someone explained what analytic philosophy is like. [I forget who]. It is like the sword of Saladin as opposed to that of Richard III. Richard's sword was so heavy, you needed to be in the big leagues just to be able to pick it. It weighed a lot. On the other hand Saladin's was light, but was so sharp it could slice through a feather in mid air just by touching it.
Analytic philosophy is like Saladin's sword. Exact and rigorous to an amazing degree about language. It is not nonsense, but who could care less? Possible worlds? It tells me nothing about about possible world since it is not Physics.
[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental. So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.
[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]
[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental. So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.
[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]
