|
On December 05 2010 11:52 Usyless wrote:Show nested quote +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."
Pretty much this. However, I do agree with the previous posts in that the two branches are becoming much more intertwined. I took a summer philosophy at Brown University, and it was an overview of 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, and whenever the professor discussed his interpretations of the philosopher's works, he usually argued through linguistic analysis and tried to define then rigorously dissect concepts that were (usually) not explicitly stated by the philosophers.
|
I think it should be fairly evident to most philosophers, continental and analytic, that the "big questions" aren't likely to be answered for a very long time. Thus, while there continues to be a reason for philosophers to philosophize (doho), it does not in itself provide much utility to people who aren't obsessively wondering about what it is to know something, or what have you.
However, having taken a number of philosophy courses (analytic, for the most part), it does teach you how to think, how to argue, how to approach new questions, and, most frustratingly, how to find new questions*.
With that kind of "use" in mind for philosophy, I find analytic to be far more effective at actually accomplishing this kind of progress in thinking. Continental has always seemed to me to be an exercise in writing as much as possible while saying as little as possible, although I confess to flat out not understanding most of it unless I'm helped through it.
I would hazard that if there are answers to the big questions, Continental is more likely to find them (unless the answer is that there is no answer, in which case I'd expect that proof to come from analytic philosophers).
*This is why philosophers are incapable of answering a question without also asking a question.
|
I've taken several philosophy courses and read a little, but I had actually never heard about this distinction in methods until now. From what I've devised from this thread and a link provided:
The actual question being posed here is about which I find more convincing. The answer to this would clearly be analytical. If your entire goal is to be careful and concise with your arguments and proofs, there's little I can find fault with. If the question were to be rephrased as to which I found more valuable, I would have difficulty answering that. From what I understand, they complement each other. Continental philosophers expand our limits of understanding and perception of our existence and analytical philosophers are well suited to critique and break down the arguments of continental philosophers. I might choose continental as having the greatest value, but it would be a difficult choice and I'm still not sure I fully understand the depth of the distinction between them.
|
Continental philosophy often seems to me to be more like literature, really. Continental philosophy seems more about offering different perspectives on the world.
I forgot who said it, but an analytic philosopher once described philosophy as "the process of clarifying thoughts," and I think that's what analytic philosophy really does strive for. So, I think analytic philosophy is much more concerned with reaching objective truths, even if most analytic philosophers have realized that philosophy is ill-equipped to actually achieve any (outside of disproving ideas).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
great posts by usyless
analytic philosophy used to be about a coherent project of systematically constructing a more precise/coherent/scientific language and epistemology, but this project ended 80 to 50 years ago. now the most meaningful sense of analytic philosophy is an approach to philosophical problems via conceptual and linguistic analysis, and increasingly reference to scientific advances in our knowledge of human cognition. you can apply this method to the favorite topics of "continental philosophy" as well, and people are already doing so as evinced by the hegel revival and stuff like that.
more to the point though, analytic and continental philosophy today can be understood as the product of two distinct academic circles. analytic and continental departments do not communicate much, because the standard for what constitute a good paper, the building block of modern philosophical production, is so different between them. if you are trained in an analytic department, you would be told to write clearly and precisely, always making sure your concepts and method of argumentation are widely understood.
to make an analogy, analytic philosophers contribute to philosophy by building one big lego castle together, while continentals paint their own paintings and share them with other artists, who may be making statues or painting in a different style. when you play with legos, your piece must "match" the pieces that were built before you, and analytic philosophy reproduces itself through these matchings. of course, with more communication between the traditions, some of the continental concepts and problems will be absorbed. if they are good (by which i mean philosophically useful and substantive), then they'll be included in the general lexicon, if not, then they will be abandoned.
the point of all this is that analytic philosophy is not simply a restricted list of philosophical topics and convictions. it's a philosophic community that has evolved through the ages, reproducing its methods and standards but not always smoothly. guys like rorty actually tried to argue against continuing this, but without much success and for good reasons.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as for op's specific complaint,
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.
as i hinted above, this problem is due to the facts of academic production rather than the flaws of analytic philosophy itself. when you write a paper, what's the easiest thing to do? read up on the field literature, identify a debate, then make your own little branch problem, and possibly name your little branch. if you have some amazing insight that will topple the entire structure, then great, you have a lot of good branches you can write about. but as is more frequently the case, your branch is simply a minute refinement of a previous debate.
let me try to explain your complaint this way, see if you disagree:
the great volume of academic philosophy production seems to be on inconsequential and rigidly defined topics, but this does not mean genuine invention and progress is impossible.
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.
philosophy of mind is hugely important and active. it is simply false that analytic philosophy does not care for the topics you listed.
anyway, look at this survey. it maps out the "branches" and schools of philosophy quite interestingly. also, i'd also include social theory in philosophy. i do agree that contienntals do a better job of reading the crit theory guys than analytic.
|
Quite simply, continental philosophy is second greatest fraud ever pulled on any academic community, after psychoanalysis.
One difference would be that everything Jung and Freud said was wrong, but everything continental philosophers have said doesn't even make sense.
|
analytical is for looking in
continental is for looking out
it's a precarious balance having both
|
On December 05 2010 11:52 Usyless wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. [...]
I'd like to point out that this is historically false. In the early 20th century one of the centers of (later so called) philosophy based on language, logic, etc was in "continental" europe, to be precise: Frege, the vienna circle, the berlin circle and the polish logician school (and probably we should name the mathematicians like Hilbert as well). Most of the analytic philosophy in the mid 20th century is based on those people moving to the us or gb because of the political situations in germany/austria and finally world war 2. There is also an analytic school in scandinavia (most prominently in finland). The equation analytic philosophy = angloamerican world is therefore false, although analytic philosphy became academic standard mostly in the angloamerican world.
|
On December 05 2010 12:03 Usyless wrote:
Third guess was right.
Derrida is literally an academic troll. Some of the stuff he says is correct, but is mostly a controversal and insanely obscure version of stuff that was already said by people like Heidegger, Wittgenstein and maybe a bit of Hegel.
I wouldn't judge the contenential tradition based on him, than I'd judge SC2 pros by Naniwa.
His whole project is basically to say 'there is something like what Wittgenstein called language games' but then adds on 'but lets throw out any sort of objectivity or meaning because these can be reduced to their respective histories'. Once you adopt these two points of view, you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you want. I mean, there are philosophers that run with this Ala Richard Rorty, but in the end even he defends a kind of objectivity. It's just his objectivity lacks the kind of moralisation you still feel in his contemporaries like Davidson.
|
On December 06 2010 00:59 kataa wrote:Derrida is literally an academic troll. Some of the stuff he says is correct, but is mostly a controversal and insanely obscure version of stuff that was already said by people like Heidegger, Wittgenstein and maybe a bit of Hegel. I wouldn't judge the contenential tradition based on him, than I'd judge SC2 pros by Naniwa. His whole project is basically to say 'there is something like what Wittgenstein called language games' but then adds on 'but lets throw out any sort of objectivity or meaning because these can be reduced to their respective histories'. Once you adopt these two points of view, you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you want. I mean, there are philosophers that run with this Ala Richard Rorty, but in the end even he defends a kind of objectivity. It's just his objectivity lacks the kind of moralisation you still feel in his contemporaries like Davidson.
You couldn't have said that any better. Derrida is a troll who translated Heidegger into French and added very little besides confusion.
|
Continental philosophy seems so washed up to the point that it's meaningless. You go into class, 5 people say that like this passage, teacher asks them to sum it up, and all of the explanations are completely different. It really seems like when you read it you're convincing yourself moreso than not.
Analytic philosophy on the other hand can actually be read and you can know pretty much precisely what is being meant without much argument at all. Now maybe it's not as "practical" as nonsense is, but it's building nice and slow and surely when it gets further it will have some ideas that are practical. I mean, look at the history of analysis. All those things like Dedekind cuts, Balzano's Theorem, etc... are they impractical? You'd think... until you learn many things in calculus you can prove with them and how they lead mathematics into even more practical areas until it's almost as though the theorem was made for that practical application.
|
Continental philosophy is a huge joke that seems to try the best it can to not be clear, to be as vague an imprecise as possible and never to commit the cardinal sin of actually trying to back up what you say. But then again, this is what separates philosophy from science isn't it?
Analytical philosophy in a way is 'genre-less science', many fields of science started out as 'philosophy' and were called that before more than 3 people started to do it. Physics started as mathematical principles of natural philosophy because there were about three dudes who tried to understand natural interaction in terms of quantitative mathematics.
Philosophy just means 'any text written by someone who's probably at least half-scholared and whose genre I can't really place'
Continental philosophy are basically upper-class political columns, it's just writing down your opinion, as vaguely as you like to, without having to worry about also backing it up. I mean, people even debate about 'what did Nietzsche mean here?', hell, inherent to any work of scholarship for me is that it's perfectly clear amongst the target audience what someone meant, imagine if physicists started to debate what Einstein meant.
|
On December 05 2010 23:02 oneofthem wrote:
great posts by usyless
analytic philosophy used to be about a coherent project of systematically constructing a more precise/coherent/scientific language and epistemology, but this project ended 80 to 50 years ago. now the most meaningful sense of analytic philosophy is an approach to philosophical problems via conceptual and linguistic analysis, and increasingly reference to scientific advances in our knowledge of human cognition. you can apply this method to the favorite topics of "continental philosophy" as well, and people are already doing so as evinced by the hegel revival and stuff like that.
more to the point though, analytic and continental philosophy today can be understood as the product of two distinct academic circles. analytic and continental departments do not communicate much, because the standard for what constitute a good paper, the building block of modern philosophical production, is so different between them. if you are trained in an analytic department, you would be told to write clearly and precisely, always making sure your concepts and method of argumentation are widely understood.
to make an analogy, analytic philosophers contribute to philosophy by building one big lego castle together, while continentals paint their own paintings and share them with other artists, who may be making statues or painting in a different style. when you play with legos, your piece must "match" the pieces that were built before you, and analytic philosophy reproduces itself through these matchings. of course, with more communication between the traditions, some of the continental concepts and problems will be absorbed. if they are good (by which i mean philosophically useful and substantive), then they'll be included in the general lexicon, if not, then they will be abandoned.
the point of all this is that analytic philosophy is not simply a restricted list of philosophical topics and convictions. it's a philosophic community that has evolved through the ages, reproducing its methods and standards but not always smoothly. guys like rorty actually tried to argue against continuing this, but without much success and for good reasons.
Thanks, one of the few posts that didn't make me nauseous.
I think your Lego analogy is interesting because it also points to the analytic attitude that a philosopher should do great work to solve small manageable problems rather than attempt to be cavalier and solve all philosophy in one sitting. I don't know if you agree with that but whatevs
Also, if you guys would allow me to put my 2 cents of wisdom in this thread, I took some high level classes and seminars in both analytic and continental philosophy. The best continental philosophy can be clearer and more logical than analytic philosophy. I can also say that the best analytic philosophy can confuse more people than continental philosophy does. What I'm trying to say is that we're working with two concepts here which are so huge and ambiguous that it's not really productive to just stand here and toss tomatoes at each other. To me the distinction between analytic and continental is more political than essential.
|
I want both at the same time!
|
I can't fucking stand continental philosophy. I'd rather scrub myself with a cheese grater.
Analytic philosophers over the ages have had their flaws but at least they're trying to get somewhere with their theorizing. It seems continental philosophy is an intellectual circle-jerk.
I'm not into that.
So my answer is: Analytic.
|
On December 05 2010 11:19 Consolidate wrote:
By relevant I mean with regard to the impending breakthroughs sure to be made in the field of neuroscience.
Well, then the answer is obviously analytic, considering philosophy of mind is an analytic field...
Reading Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Hegel gave me terrible headaches. It's really bad.
|
|
|
Thank God almost all the work I've done has been in political philosophy, so this distinction hasn't been as important.
|
On December 05 2010 23:43 searcher wrote:
Quite simply, continental philosophy is second greatest fraud ever pulled on any academic community, after psychoanalysis.
One difference would be that everything Jung and Freud said was wrong, but everything continental philosophers have said doesn't even make sense.
I have to agree with that. There's a lot of stuff which I think qualifies as continental philosophy which no one has a clue as to what it means. I was writing my thesis paper last year on scientific revolutions and gestalt shifts, so for some reason I decided to use Kant's critique of the power of judgment to broaden my approach towards the topic. I'm pretty sure German idealism counts as continental philosophy. Anyway, some of the points were great, meaningful, and useful in writing my thesis. But then I just hit parts which I just didn't get. That's fine. I'm not a philosophy major or anything. So I do a bit of research, poke around, look for third party interpretations of Kant. What I find is that there are vast sections of his work which almost no one can agree on an interpretation. So I just focused on the parts of his work which made sense to me and were useful in my thesis.
Its almost like continental philosophers are just philosophizing for themselves. By that I mean that they are more apt to build a worldview by themselves, coining a bunch of new terms, and even if it only makes sense to them, write a big book on it and try to present it to everyone else. More than anything, I see their value primarily as presenting novel ideas. Analytical philosophy, on the other hand, seems more geared towards a community effort. There are standards of rigor, communal paradigms, methods, etc. This is of course just based off my limited experience with reading philosophy in school and on my own. Like I said, I'm no philosophy major.
But I do find both ways of thinking equally useful. Sometimes its useful to be able to think in a way that makes sense to you, even if it seems nonsensical or peculiar to everyone else. The challenge, though is logically examining these 'hunches' and seeing if they really hold up to the rigor of analytical philosophy. But at the end of the day, I find it hard to believe that continental philosophy is even considered an academic discipline by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
