I don't feel interested/qualified enough to answer. (78)
38%
Analytic (71)
35%
Continental (54)
27%
203 total votes
Your vote: Analytic vs Continental
(Vote): Analytic (Vote): Continental (Vote): I don't feel interested/qualified enough to answer.
Prior to the closing of the ill-advised 'religion' thread. I came across posts which seemed to be authored by people well-versed in philosophy. To them and anyone else thus inclined, I pose a simple but understandably esoteric question.
Analytic vs Continental Philosophy. Which do you find more convincing?
If think that the comparison is misleading by comparing a style and a school, then change it to analytic philosophers vs continental philosophers in general.
I ask this question because modern academic philosophy is dominated by the analytic approach. I can't help but feel that such a calculated and regimented style diverts attention and resources away from the creation of more relevant theories.
By relevant I mean with regard to the impending breakthroughs sure to be made in the field of neuroscience. A return to the questions surrounding consciousness, human motivations, and free-will.
On December 05 2010 11:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: I don't understand what you mean at all . And the many 3-4 syllable words intimidate me into not wanting to know...
I hate that philosophy is so semantically confusing as well. But if you're interested:
Nice to see a philosophy thread on TL that doesn't consist of 'what is the meaning of life plz?'. I'd pick analytic because I'm still in love with early Wittgenstein and Russell. I'm also still reading contemporary philosophers like Davidson and McDowell.
However, I wouldn't compare them by relavence. Both of them are still concerned with the fundemental question thats driven all philosophy and that is 'what is neccessary' that's the driving force behind all real metaphysics. I don't really see how neuroscience solves any of that, but then again I'm a pragmatist in regards to truth and meaning, so my diffenition of 'solve' might differ from most people.
Also, I think's worth mentioning that in Academic departments, at least where I'm going (King's College London) there insn't really a distinction between the two schools anymore. I mean, take someone like Brandom his main influence is Hegel, yet he's in many ways an analyitic philosopher.
Modern academic philosophy is a pretty small, somewhat incesteous circle, there isn't the huge divide there used to be at the beginning of the Anglo-American project back in the days of Russell and Whitehead.
edit : lol guy beat me to posting Brain Leiters website
It sounds, OP, like you don't really understand what contemporary analytic philosophers actually do. Consciousness, motivation, and free will are major topics with massive amounts of activity among analytic departments. If anything, analytic philosophers are MORE interested in those questions than most contemporary continental philosophers. I'm not sure what you mean by the "calculated and regimented style" of analytic philosophy. A-philosophers don't really share one style or concern, although compared to C-philosophers they do tend to be more precise, thorough, and rigorous and have a better grasp of the clarity that comes with attention to argument, logic, and the meanings of our words and concepts. I don't see how that diverts the attention away from 'relevant' theories.
On December 05 2010 11:31 travis wrote: I like ideas not names and classifications. Let's discuss ideas!
basically my response to the OP is: what did u just say? !
This video does a pretty nice job of summing some of it up. Philosophy is torn at the moment between people that are still holding on to a philosophy project that started back around the turn of the last century, that thought they'd solve pretty much all big philosophical questions. Versus a bunch of cynical guys, most of whom are French, who like mocking that project.
On December 05 2010 11:28 Usyless wrote: It sounds, OP, like you don't really understand what contemporary analytic philosophers actually do. Consciousness, motivation, and free will are major topics with massive amounts of activity among analytic departments. If anything, analytic philosophers are MORE interested in those questions than most contemporary continental philosophers. I'm not sure what you mean by the "calculated and regimented style" of analytic philosophy. A-philosophers don't really share one style or concern, although compared to C-philosophers they do tend to be more precise, thorough, and rigorous and have a better grasp of the clarity that comes with attention to argument, logic, and the meanings of our words and concepts. I don't see how that diverts the attention away from 'relevant' theories.
I admit to generalizing a good deal. And in retrospect, my example of 'relevant' subject matters is pretty poor. Feel feel to ignore that part.
The main point still stands, contemporary analytic philosophy, though more rigorous, doesn''t seem to suggest many practical implications. Continental philosophy tends to make grander gestures - more tenuous sure, but also more provocative.
Continental. I started studying philosophy and theology after coming across Paul Tillich and it was only natural I started reading about philosophy that pertains to the continental tradition (Heidegger, Derrida, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Delueze).
On December 05 2010 11:34 lowercase wrote: How about you explain what these two schools of thought are first and then let us discuss them.
They're not really schools of thought or really very unified traditions. In the early 20th century philosophers in the Angloamerican world were doing philosophy rather differently than philosophers in continental Europe, with a focus on language, logic, and the meanings of concepts, and with a premium put on clarity of presentation and argumentation. Angloamerican philosophers looked down on continental philosophers for writing what they saw as deliberately obscure profound-sounding bulls*** riddled with undefined neologisms, equivocations, and shoddy reasoning. The continental philosophers had complaints of their own and there was not much communication between the groups. The distinction persisted even though there's no unified approach among either continental or analytic philosophers. So the distinction won't make much sense to you unless you've actually read a good deal of philosophy of either stripe.
Here's a typical excerpt from a prominent continental philosopher: "In determining Being as presence (presence of the present being [étantprésent] in the form of an object, or self-presence of the present being in the form of self-consciousness), metaphysics could only consider the sign as a passage, a place of passage, a passage-way [passerelle] between two moments of presence, the provisional reference from one presence to the other. The passage-way can be lifted. The sign procedure, the process of signification, has a history; it is history comprehended: comprehended between a primordial presence and its reappropriation in a final presence, in the self-presence that would have been separated from itself only during the time of a detour, the time of the sign. The time of the sign is then the time of reference; and time itself is but the referring of presence to itself. As such signification, the sign procedure is, to be sure, the moment of presence lost; but it is a presence lost by the very time that engages it in the movement of its reappropriation."
Great posts by kataa and usyless...couldn't agree more. The more I study contemporary philosophy the less this useful this distinction, although at one time in my studies I did find it useful. For those who are less experienced, typical "continental" philosophers might be the German idealists (including Hegel), phenomenologists such as Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty, as well as the one-of-a-kind Foucault. A great (imo) interaction between "analytic" or anglo philosophers and Jürgen Habermas, a contemporary "continental" philosopher that centers precisely around neuroscience and free will can be found in this journal: Philosophical Explorations, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2007. Here, Habermas makes an argument concerning what he broadly construes as "naturalism" (which is an important programmatic term in much of analytic philosophy today, although it is unfortunately used to mean many different things) and how (what he calls) the naturalist program runs into problems with free will.
I think, as Kataa's comments reveal, the more work philosophers do the more interrelated it becomes. This is funny because philosophy continues to become increasingly specialized. I think anglo philosophy has always benefited from a greater "programmatic" orientation: take the logical positivists, or the Davidsonian research program. Or take current philosophy of psychology (Stephen Stich is a good example here). People, and departments, actually do very specific research under broader umbrella programs. In Europe examples of programmatic success are less forthcoming I think. Just as much as Heidegger or Sartre attempted to continue Husserl's phenomenological project, for instance, they fundamentally altered its foundations.
I think it is very fortunate that philosophers are synthesizing analytic and continental approaches, as in the current interest in combining phenomenological approaches and "analytical" philosophy of mind.
I can't poll, because I really don't know that it's clear yet which approaches will prove to be more useful. I've tended to admire the naivete of some philosophers who are considered analytic (chisolm, Russel, wittgenstein, and many others). I've tended to admire the boldness of continental philosophers (Hegel, Husserl, Sartre, Foucault, though I can't honestly say I've successfully understood much of any of it). Usually when an "analytic" philosopher comes across to me as bold (quine, davidson), I either don't understand it well (davidson, sometimes quine) or I disagree (quine, sometimes davidson.
Thanks for the post OP, because this is really fun to combine starcraft time with philosophy time. Still working on that "philosophy of starcraft" I planned all those years ago....
On December 05 2010 11:38 Consolidate wrote: I admit to generalizing a good deal. And in retrospect, my example of 'relevant' subject matters is pretty poor. Feel feel to ignore that part.
The main point still stands, contemporary analytic philosophy, though more rigorous, doesn''t seem to suggest many practical implications. Continental philosophy tends to make grander gestures - more tenuous sure, but also more provocative.
Grand gesturing is a good description of what continental philosophers do.
Here's a typical excerpt from a prominent continental philosopher: "In determining Being as presence (presence of the present being [étantprésent] in the form of an object, or self-presence of the present being in the form of self-consciousness), metaphysics could only consider the sign as a passage, a place of passage, a passage-way [passerelle] between two moments of presence, the provisional reference from one presence to the other. The passage-way can be lifted. The sign procedure, the process of signification, has a history; it is history comprehended: comprehended between a primordial presence and its reappropriation in a final presence, in the self-presence that would have been separated from itself only during the time of a detour, the time of the sign. The time of the sign is then the time of reference; and time itself is but the referring of presence to itself. As such signification, the sign procedure is, to be sure, the moment of presence lost; but it is a presence lost by the very time that engages it in the movement of its reappropriation."
Hey usyless who is that? I'm gonna guess post being-and-nothingness Sartre or Foucault...ah but then it could be derrida.
more convincing of what? philosophy has value insofar as a particular thinker's arguments are concerned. "How persuasive he is" is a question more suited to CompLit students.
Here's a typical excerpt from a prominent continental philosopher: "In determining Being as presence (presence of the present being [étantprésent] in the form of an object, or self-presence of the present being in the form of self-consciousness), metaphysics could only consider the sign as a passage, a place of passage, a passage-way [passerelle] between two moments of presence, the provisional reference from one presence to the other. The passage-way can be lifted. The sign procedure, the process of signification, has a history; it is history comprehended: comprehended between a primordial presence and its reappropriation in a final presence, in the self-presence that would have been separated from itself only during the time of a detour, the time of the sign. The time of the sign is then the time of reference; and time itself is but the referring of presence to itself. As such signification, the sign procedure is, to be sure, the moment of presence lost; but it is a presence lost by the very time that engages it in the movement of its reappropriation."
Hey usyless who is that? I'm gonna guess post being-and-nothingness Sartre or Foucault...ah but then it could be derrida.
On December 05 2010 11:38 Consolidate wrote: I admit to generalizing a good deal. And in retrospect, my example of 'relevant' subject matters is pretty poor. Feel feel to ignore that part.
The main point still stands, contemporary analytic philosophy, though more rigorous, doesn''t seem to suggest many practical implications. Continental philosophy tends to make grander gestures - more tenuous sure, but also more provocative.
Grand gesturing is a good description of what continental philosophers do.
But it would be a mistake to hold that against all of them. Some grand claims are more convincing than others. Hegel is but one of many.
On December 05 2010 11:27 kataa wrote: Nice to see a philosophy thread on TL that doesn't consist of 'what is the meaning of life plz?'. I'd pick analytic because I'm still in love with early Wittgenstein and Russell. I'm also still reading contemporary philosophers like Davidson and McDowell.
However, I wouldn't compare them by relavence. Both of them are still concerned with the fundemental question thats driven all philosophy and that is 'what is neccessary' that's the driving force behind all real metaphysics. I don't really see how neuroscience solves any of that, but then again I'm a pragmatist in regards to truth and meaning, so my diffenition of 'solve' might differ from most people.
Also, I think's worth mentioning that in Academic departments, at least where I'm going (King's College London) there insn't really a distinction between the two schools anymore. I mean, take someone like Brandom his main influence is Hegel, yet he's in many ways an analyitic philosopher.
Modern academic philosophy is a pretty small, somewhat incesteous circle, there isn't the huge divide there used to be at the beginning of the Anglo-American project back in the days of Russell and Whitehead.
edit : lol guy beat me to posting Brain Leiters website
The divide exists in my head more as a convenient narrative.
On neuroscience... I guess I was trying to give an example of a field in science with the potential to lead the topic of philosophical discussion rather than having the two pursuits removed from each other as they seem to be now.
I probably shouldn't have shoehorned that point into the topic of continental vs analytic.
Analytic philosophy is what you think of when people mention 'philosophy', it is rigorous and scientific in nature, proving things with arguments such as "if X then Y, X therefore Y". This branch of philosophy tends to look at different topics by separating it from its environment and looking at it in a vacuum, such as Ethics, or Political theories as something that is apart from the context it is created from or applied to. This doctrine of philosophy currently dominates most if not all of the ways philosophy is taught in universities. Notable analytic philosophers: Bertrand Russell, John Rawls.
The style of continental philosophy is almost the opposite of analytical philosophy, it outright rejects science and the scientific method as the best way of explaining the world. However, this does not mean that it rejects logic. It is hard to describe what continental philosophy actually is because it is not an actual school of thought but rather a different way of thinking that was used by some philosophers during the 19th and 20th century. Continental philosophers tend to discuss topics with context to history, that everything can be explained through their history, be it ethics, sociology, even philosophy itself. In fact most of the continental philosophers don't focus on topics that analytical philosophers like to argue about, instead they tend to try and challenge the things we take for granted instead, such as existence, science, and even philosophy itself. Sorry if this is confusing you I'm not articulate enough to explain this in such a quick response, but if you have read any Nietzsche you would understand what I mean. Notable continental philosophers: Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger.
Back on topic, personally I enjoy reading continental philosophy a lot more than analytical philosophy, there are many more "oh shit, that just blew my mind!" moments, even though there are many "wtf is this guy talking about?" moments that go with it. These two styles of philosophy convince readers in different ways, analytic philosophy convinces you in the manner you would find in the sc2 strategy subforums on TL, by providing replays and numbers that show one build is better than the other. On the other hand continental philosophy convince readers by forming a connection or making the reader see the 'flow' of things through history. In the end it all goes back to what they are trying to explain. Analytical philosophy cannot be denied if you accept the assumption that our current logic is at the base of how we should explain our world. But Continental philosophy tends to undermine that by questioning exactly that base upon which we build our knowledge upon, shaking the foundations to be precise. I think continental philosophy is one tier above analytical in terms of how deep we go in questioning, and in so going that much deeper we have to let go of analytics because outside of its domain, analytics is useless.
EPT
. And the many 3-4 syllable words intimidate me into not wanting to know...
