EPTI find continental philosophy to be much more useful to a persons life. Basically everyone needs to read Being and Nothingness, is all I'm trying to say.
Analytic vs Continental Philosophy - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
I find continental philosophy to be much more useful to a persons life. Basically everyone needs to read Being and Nothingness, is all I'm trying to say. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
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. ...What? What do you mean it doesn't make sense. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
EDIT As an afterthought, though, once you get past that large hurdle with continental stuff, the material tends to be much more fun. Analytic writings are much more dry and it feels much more like work to read through them. I still think I prefer analytic philosophy as I feel less overwhelmed whenever I start reading any of that, but that doesn't necessarily take away from continental. As far as which are more convincing...that's not something anyone can really say with much weight. It takes a lifetime of work to study understand even one philosopher's ideas and works in continental philosophy. In analytic, nothing is ever really closed. Topics are discussed until there's not much debate, then people kind of stop talking about it and move on to other things... I think a much more interesting OP would've asked what peoples' preferences are, not which they find more convincing. EDIT2 Wow. Considering the kind of replies already in this thread, it would seem TL has a very large community of very well educated people with at least a masters-level or equivalent education in philosophy. -_- There's a lot of stuff people are saying that makes no sense. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_pwni | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
On December 07 2010 16:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Wow, almost 3 whole pages without someone mentioning Ayn Rand. That has to be a TL philosophy thread record. :/I thought there may be some TLers who might benefit from listening to this. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_pwni | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
As a rule, that fits into analytical philosophy more as continental philosophers are more inclined to not justify the origins of what they say at all, though neither side is great at it. I will say that I believe almost all philosophers are indulging in nothing more than onanistic nonsense, regardless of school of thought. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On December 05 2010 23:09 oneofthem wrote: as for op's specific complaint, 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. 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. You are probably right. To be honest, my main frustration is exactly that certain branches of analytic philosophy are a refinement of others - it's hard to know where to begin reading. I began reading philosophy during a period in my life when I was easily impressionable and classical continental philosophers I found to be more accessible with more personality. | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1016 Posts
However, after a lot of study (I essentially minored in political philosophy), I found myself more drawn to the continental school. The complexity isn't just bullshit - there's definitely value in it, and I like their modern attempts to find objective truths. In particular, Habermas's linguistic work finally gave me a decent defence against my peers' love of relativistic arguments | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:09 Tal wrote: I've only really studied philosophy alongside international relations, which I did my degree in. I liked the continental philosophy of Habermas, and the analytic philosophy of Rawls. As this thread suggests, Rawls was about a hundred times easier to understand, as he doesn't use those 'endless paragraph' German sentences, and tries to say things as simply as possible. However, after a lot of study (I essentially minored in political philosophy), I found myself more drawn to the continental school. The complexity isn't just bullshit - there's definitely value in it, and I like their modern attempts to find objective truths. In particular, Habermas's linguistic work finally gave me a decent defence against my peers' love of relativistic arguments If you are looking for arguments against relativism, before you use Habermas you might start with, you know, Plato (theaetetus). | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
| ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On December 07 2010 16:50 FuzzyJAM wrote: I believe that any philosophical argument should (a) state its assumptions and then (b) be utterly proven from that point. From there, you can work back to the assumptions and see which are provable and which must remain a point of debate, thus coming closer to any truth that might exist and exploring the possibilities allowed for in the probabilities and unknowns which we haven't yet worked out or which might never be worked out. As a rule, that fits into analytical philosophy more as continental philosophers are more inclined to not justify the origins of what they say at all, though neither side is great at it. I will say that I believe almost all philosophers are indulging in nothing more than onanistic nonsense, regardless of school of thought. well a lot of the continental philosophers weren't exactly making huge claims about epistemic or logic based things(from a meta perspective, things like radical free will and what not certainly delve a little more deeply into the areas of logic). so the need to have a logically refined system of "proving" claims is really unneeded. can you actually justify and define Being(big B)using a pseudo-scientific method? rather it seems to be more semantics based. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
But I find stupid to oppose them as block and I have never done such a thing in my school life (like there is such a thing as continental philosophers or analytic philosophers, it mostly depend on the object they are studying, no?). | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:21 pfods wrote: well a lot of the continental philosophers weren't exactly making huge claims about epistemic or logic based things(from a meta perspective, things like radical free will and what not certainly delve a little more deeply into the areas of logic). so the need to have a logically refined system of "proving" claims is really unneeded. can you actually justify and define Being(big B)using a pseudo-scientific method? rather it seems to be more semantics based. You cannot prove anything without making some assumptions. The fact that there is no acceptance that these assumptions are made is what irritates me and makes me see what they say as worthless. How can you discover the truth of a view that doesn't state the assumptions it makes? What is the point in philosophy if it doesn't try to show itself to be correct insofar as that is possible? You can't disprove it and you can't act upon it. It is merely there for itself. Maybe some people might find it interesting to read whatever someone has said, so fine, enjoy, but to me it's worthless. Worthwhile philosophy, to me, is a science, not an artform. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:21 pfods wrote: well a lot of the continental philosophers weren't exactly making huge claims about epistemic or logic based things(from a meta perspective, things like radical free will and what not certainly delve a little more deeply into the areas of logic). so the need to have a logically refined system of "proving" claims is really unneeded. can you actually justify and define Being(big B)using a pseudo-scientific method? rather it seems to be more semantics based. "so the need to have a logically refined system of "proving" claims is really unneeded." The statement I quote above is intended to be the consequence of an argument (that is the reason you have the "so") -- and if it isn't intended to be the consequence of an argument then it is simply your bald assertion and unless you are saying that all bald assertions are of equal validity then yes, a system of proving claims is needed. "can you actually justify and define Being(big B)using a pseudo-scientific method?" Well I don't know what you mean by "justify and define" or "pseudo-scientific" but if you mean investigating Being (big B) qua Being, then yes you can study it systematically -- for example, you should probably check out the study done by the little known philosopher, Aristotle (metaphysics). | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:27 FuzzyJAM wrote: You cannot prove anything without making some assumptions. The fact that there is no acceptance that these assumptions are made is what irritates me and makes me see what they say as worthless. How can you discover the truth of a view that doesn't state the assumptions it makes? What is the point in philosophy if it doesn't try to show itself to be correct insofar as that is possible? You can't disprove it and you can't act upon it. It is merely there for itself. Maybe some people might find it interesting to read whatever someone has said, so fine, enjoy, but to me it's worthless. Worthwhile philosophy, to me, is a science, not an artform. i can see what you're saying, but i just consider the two aspects of philosophy that they study to be so widely different, that the same methods do no apply. and if you really want to discuss proving something, i have to say it's funny that you're on the analytics side, considering how bogged down they continually are with the problem of induction and the justification of knowledge. even Poppers solution was basically "it works so who cares?". that's not really trying to find the truth, that's just giving up. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:33 pfods wrote: i can see what you're saying, but i just consider the two aspects of philosophy that they study to be so widely different, that the same methods do no apply. and if you really want to discuss proving something, i have to say it's funny that you're on the analytics side, considering how bogged down they continually are with the problem of induction and the justification of knowledge. even Poppers solution was basically "it works so who cares?". that's not really trying to find the truth, that's just giving up. Exactly what I think. Your epistemology mostly depend on the object you are studying. Nietzsche for me is like the "WTF" guy, even his writing style is weird. But I will always remember the reading of the beginning of la généalogie de la morale (genealogy of morale ?). Weber (sociologue) said it was a great essay, and for me the beginning is very sociologic. What I mean is, even nietsche can be quite clear when he is exposing his object. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: "so the need to have a logically refined system of "proving" claims is really unneeded." The statement I quote above is intended to be the consequence of an argument (that is the reason you have the "so") -- and if it isn't intended to be the consequence of an argument then it is simply your bald assertion and unless you are saying that all bald assertions are of equal validity then yes, a system of proving claims is needed. "can you actually justify and define Being(big B)using a pseudo-scientific method?" Well I don't know what you mean by "justify and define" or "pseudo-scientific" but if you mean investigating Being (big B) qua Being, then yes you can study it systematically -- for example, you should probably check out the study done by the little known philosopher, Aristotle (metaphysics). The statement I quote above is intended to be the consequence of an argument (that is the reason you have the "so") -- and if it isn't intended to be the consequence of an argument then it is simply your bald assertion and unless you are saying that all bald assertions are of equal validity then yes, a system of proving claims is needed. the consequence, or result, of an argument is to develop a way to argue about it? that's a circular statement, and makes no sense. Well I don't know what you mean by "justify and define" or "pseudo-scientific" but if you mean investigating Being (big B) qua Being, then yes you can study it systematically -- for example, you should probably check out the study done by the little known philosopher, Aristotle (metaphysics). I cannot take the greeks serious when they delve into any sort of philosophy regarding man or his existence. it's so bogged down in huge assertions about physics and theology that it cannot be taken serious. | ||
|
Kishkumen
United States650 Posts
Both areas have their pros and cons, and to compare them is really to compare apples and oranges. True, they're fruit, but they're pretty different types of fruit. Analytic philosophy is good for reasoned, logical, scientific study into philosophy, while Continental philosophy is good for exploring those areas that aren't really meant for flawlessly logical arguments, like art or literature. They both have their place, and to remove them from their place or to compare them across that distance doesn't accomplish much. Personally, I see the benefits in both. I love Searle's work from the Analytic side; his contributions to speech act theory are especially interesting to me as a linguistics student. On the other hand, I took a literature class last semester, and I really had fun with Derrida. True, he's deliberately obtuse and quite silly at times, but his ideas can be quite fun to play around with. Also, are there any other Levinas fans here? He's a very underrated Continental philosopher with very interesting ideas. I really liked learning about his work. Very good stuff about ethics and our obligation to people around us. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
I don't see why you should chose one againt the other. I'm way more interested in continental philosophy, but I have a lot of respect for analytic philosophy. Most young philosopher today are working with both and support the idea that this artificial rivalry should end up. | ||
| ||
