|
On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
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.
.
No, that is a very analytical-centric point of view. I don't know a single continental that would consider himself to be less reasoned or logical than an American philosopher.
Also, be VERY careful about using the word "scientific" to describe analytical philosophy. In fact I'd suggest you never do that.
|
On December 07 2010 18:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Both are great. And they are not exclusive.
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.
I don't know, pretty sure the vast majority of american philosophy departments are exclusively analytical. Probably the same in the UK.
|
On December 07 2010 18:42 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 18:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Both are great. And they are not exclusive.
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. I don't know, pretty sure the vast majority of american philosophy departments are exclusively analytical. Probably the same in the UK.
More than the vast majority! Almost without exception!
|
On December 07 2010 18:39 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
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.
. No, that is a very analytical-centric point of view. I don't know a single continental that would consider himself to be less reasoned or logical than an American philosopher. Also, be VERY careful about using the word "scientific" to describe analytical philosophy. In fact I'd suggest you never do that.
I suppose it could be described as analytic-centric. I mostly just based my views on what I've read from both sides. To me, the Continental works I've read have been more lacking in logic and well-structured arguments when compared to analytic works I've read. It doesn't mean they don't have good things to say, but it does mean that many of their arguments don't fit well into a standard conception of "logic."
And I thought part of Analytic philosophy was a sort of scientific bent to philosophical inquiry. I'm not well-versed in the nuance of these sorts of terminology, and I've come to find that often a word takes on an entirely different, more nuanced meaning in the realm of philosophy, but at least in my field of linguistics, the works of Analytic philosophers fit in quite well with what I would term scientific thought.
|
On December 07 2010 18:53 Kishkumen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 18:39 Fyodor wrote:On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
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.
. No, that is a very analytical-centric point of view. I don't know a single continental that would consider himself to be less reasoned or logical than an American philosopher. Also, be VERY careful about using the word "scientific" to describe analytical philosophy. In fact I'd suggest you never do that. I suppose it could be described as analytic-centric. I mostly just based my views on what I've read from both sides. To me, the Continental works I've read have been more lacking in logic and well-structured arguments when compared to analytic works I've read. It doesn't mean they don't have good things to say, but it does mean that many of their arguments don't fit well into a standard conception of "logic." And I thought part of Analytic philosophy was a sort of scientific bent to philosophical inquiry. I'm not well-versed in the nuance of these sorts of terminology, and I've come to find that often a word takes on an entirely different, more nuanced meaning in the realm of philosophy, but at least in my field of linguistics, the works of Analytic philosophers fit in quite well with what I would term scientific thought.
What "non-standard" conception of "logic" do you see continental philosophers using, then?
|
On December 07 2010 19:01 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 18:53 Kishkumen wrote:On December 07 2010 18:39 Fyodor wrote:On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
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.
. No, that is a very analytical-centric point of view. I don't know a single continental that would consider himself to be less reasoned or logical than an American philosopher. Also, be VERY careful about using the word "scientific" to describe analytical philosophy. In fact I'd suggest you never do that. I suppose it could be described as analytic-centric. I mostly just based my views on what I've read from both sides. To me, the Continental works I've read have been more lacking in logic and well-structured arguments when compared to analytic works I've read. It doesn't mean they don't have good things to say, but it does mean that many of their arguments don't fit well into a standard conception of "logic." And I thought part of Analytic philosophy was a sort of scientific bent to philosophical inquiry. I'm not well-versed in the nuance of these sorts of terminology, and I've come to find that often a word takes on an entirely different, more nuanced meaning in the realm of philosophy, but at least in my field of linguistics, the works of Analytic philosophers fit in quite well with what I would term scientific thought. What "non-standard" conception of "logic" do you see continental philosophers using, then?
John Searle explains it better than I do: http://free--expression.blogspot.com/2007/10/john-searle-on-derrida.html
|
On December 07 2010 18:42 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 18:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Both are great. And they are not exclusive.
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. I don't know, pretty sure the vast majority of american philosophy departments are exclusively analytical. Probably the same in the UK.
The clivage exists, but what I'm saying is that it is an unnecessry and artificial one, and that it tends to diminush.
|
I've always thought that the idea of this division in the first place poses a very complex question for philosophy itself to answer. Or rather...more problematically...certain viewpoints within philosophy might argue that the distinction between analytic & continental philosophy isn't so clear cut or doesn't even exist, considering that one of the jobs of philosophy is the discussion or definition of boundaries and categories etc.
|
On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
I think the comparison of the two is where the whole thing breaks down. They're really very different areas of study with different goals and objectives. They both have "philosophy" in their names, but I think the differences are enough that they're no longer the same species, to use a biological metaphor. They were connected at one point, but I think now they work better as separate entities with some common areas of interest. I think setting the debate up as a sort of competition with Analytic vs. Continental is where this debate goes wrong.
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.
The problem you're running into there is that your view is coming from a very particular standpoint. One which brackets "analytical philosophy" with "logic" and "reason", where for example, another viewpoint (not necessarily "continental") might seek to undermine the rigidity of those definitions in the first place and so undermine the distinction between the two.
|
It is a question of epistemology. Saying "scientific" is a vast mystake when you are talking about philosophy. You can use scientific methods for sure, which mean you can rafine your heuristic tools, but never atteign the scientific falsifiability in human science (or social science) as Popper thought - there is no such thing as anhistorical yes / no in most of philosophical questions.
Some said that continental philosopher are harder to read: that's because they think that they need to create their own tools (word, language) to break with the social philosophy that the words contain in them.
Create your own language is an heuristic method, a "scientific" way to make philosophy. But by scientific, they mean in a historitical way, not refutable.
I'm pretty sure you will find no analytical philosopher who would use so casually the word scientific when they talk about their job.
I think the biggest difference between analytic & continental philosophy is their link with political question: while analytic philosopher try to analyse political object with logic, most of the time continental philosopher try to explain why everybody should/is legitimate to talk about political question (and they try to show what is behind a precise idea, to "reveal" the true face of an ideology).
Sorry for my english, I am the type who needs a lot of time to write, and it's even harder when it's not your own language, but well I don't have the time yet.
|
Even though I read way more literature written by analytic philosophers and work in fields that are basically pure analytic (action theory- moral motivation -collective intentionality) I think the distinction is rather dumb. First of all the distinction itself is nothing more than a categorial mistake. Second it uses a straw-man version of continental philosophy that seems to include all those philosophers (all the weird and funky post-modernist frenchies) that are hardly read and taught even in institutes that are dominated by continental philosophers. I mean to what department do Husserl, Brentano, Kant, Habermas, Descartes et al. belong and why? Third analytic philosophy is a really vaque copncept that consists more of loose strings nowadays. Most literature in that field is rather soft analytical philosophy anyways, meaning that the use of formal methods is rather limited. Also there is no common ideology that serves as a fundament for the analytic movement. Before, it was the primacy of language (ideal or common sense) that was widely accepted but now language only plays a minor role and you will see tons of analytic philosophers defending the idea that there is also non-conceptual experience and so forth. So the question if you are a continental or analytic philosopher more comes down to in what journals do you publish and whom do you quote.
|
Omg lol haha the first letters of this thread read "Anal" lolololololol
To contribute: I think the different two are different to compare of put against eachother in any way as the they are sides of the same coin, you know what Im saying?
|
On December 07 2010 18:53 Kishkumen wrote:
And I thought part of Analytic philosophy was a sort of scientific bent to philosophical inquiry. I'm not well-versed in the nuance of these sorts of terminology, and I've come to find that often a word takes on an entirely different, more nuanced meaning in the realm of philosophy, but at least in my field of linguistics, the works of Analytic philosophers fit in quite well with what I would term scientific thought.
I don`t think either scientists or philosophers would agree with you. You can`t really falsify in the same way as the hard or soft sciences as your theory has to be refutable.
|
On December 07 2010 17:39 pfods wrote:
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.
What does any of Plato have to do with assertions about physics and theology?
Also, to address another point: science and philosophy should never be compared in such a way to say that philosophy should be or is done in a "scientific" way. Philosophy is the parentage of science insofar as science was born from the desire to prove things given assumptions in certain fields. Taking neuroscience for instance, the brain can be studied inasmuch as its functions but the conclusions drawn in this field lose all their power when extrapolated to philosophical tenets.
The power of science is its ability to make concrete progress in scientific fields. Contrarily, philosophy assumes nothing, preferring the interrogation all the way to the most basic building blocks. When science oversteps its bounds, philosophy can always remind it by examining the basic assumptions in that particular scientific field.
|
On December 08 2010 10:49 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 17:39 pfods wrote:
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. What does any of Plato have to do with assertions about physics and theology?
Are you serious? Plato talks extensively about the soul and the cosmos. Not to mention the theory of forms, one of his most well known ideas.
almost everything the greeks talked about had to do with physics or theology
|
I think if you measure philosophy by its practical uses for society, it yields a more immediate answer.
Analytical philosophy seems to me to be conducted by those who like undergoing a form of logical arithmetic, or intra-cerebral exercise. Merely another way of ensuring the brain doesn't atrophy.
I'd consider the primary reason that analytical psychology is less useful at the moment is because of problems relating to divergence of cognition.
This means a right answer may only be correct to a single person because it's logical correctness is only relative to that person perception of it and it will usually be flawed in that it won't take into account the variables which caused that perception in the first place. Just like a holistic view.
Continental philosophy tends to have more practical implications because of it's belief value and how belief affects judgement and the psyche. People will understand action and reaction and merely form their beliefs around that.
However I'm cynical that it will ever result in understanding the metaphysical, which, if I'm correct is a primary aim in philosophy. However in saying this, I doubt analytical philosophy will yield anything more than an aid in understanding neuroscience and a list of possibilities for scientists to test.
Either way I find both interesting.
These are opinions based on a limited knowledge; tell me what you think. ♪♪
|
On December 08 2010 14:52 [Ryuzaki] wrote:
I think if you measure philosophy by its practical uses for society, it yields a more immediate answer.
Analytical philosophy seems to me to be conducted by those who like undergoing a form of logical arithmetic, or intra-cerebral exercise. Merely another way of ensuring the brain doesn't atrophy.
I'd consider the primary reason that analytical psychology is less useful at the moment is because of problems relating to divergence of cognition.
This means a right answer may only be correct to a single person because it's logical correctness is only relative to that person perception of it and it will usually be flawed in that it won't take into account the variables which caused that perception in the first place. Just like a holistic view.
Continental philosophy tends to have more practical implications because of it's belief value and how belief affects judgement and the psyche. People will understand action and reaction and merely form their beliefs around that.
However I'm cynical that it will ever result in understanding the metaphysical, which, if I'm correct is a primary aim in philosophy. However in saying this, I doubt analytical philosophy will yield anything more than an aid in understanding neuroscience and a list of possibilities for scientists to test.
Either way I find both interesting.
These are opinions based on a limited knowledge; tell me what you think. ♪♪
I think your understanding is a little misguided here. Though I do find your ideas interesting: Analytic philosophers are, as it were, caught up too much in the objective. Continental philosophers are caught up in the subjective and that causes them to be alienated from metaphysics. Very interesting indeed, there is truth in what you say, but there is much more to this as well.
I will say that I don't think metaphysics is necessarily the primary aim of philosophy. However that statement is true or false depending on the time period we're talking about. For the ancient Greeks, metaphysics was very big. But in modern philosophy (Descartes, Hume, Kant) the focus was epistemology--study of knowledge--because it was seen as fundamental (and in many ways still is). Contemporary philosophy is more focused on government and human affairs.
On a more relevant note though, there is a lot of debate about the nature of truth. Personally, I could go on for 10 pages about it. However you seem to be suggesting that A-philosopher have problems about how they view truth that Continentals do not. Yet there are some people who would be considered analytic that espouse relativism with respect to knowledge. And there are continental philosophers who believe in objective, absolute, and obtainable knowledge like Hegel. Maybe I am confused about your point though.
Also some people have been saying that analytic philosophy isn't concerned with neuroscience. This couldn't be further from the truth. The analytic tradition is responsible for a pathological approach to the philosophy of mind. They attempt to answer questions about mental states by appealing to empirical differences between people with and people without them. For example, I wrote a paper on the self and autobiographical memory, appealing to a case study of a woman with a more-or-less super autobiographical memory and people who were suffering from retrograde and anterograde amnesia. Philosophers have become increasingly interested in naturalistic, or "science-sensitive," approaches in nearly all schools. They don't all have their heads in the clouds.
/end educational bit
Now my opinion on the distinction:
The irony of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that analytic philosophers use it. In many ways it is a psuedo-distinction, like trying to decide whether a pile of straw is big enough to be a heap or not. There is no single set of features that will always set apart the C-philosopher from the A. Commonly, the analytic philosopher is known for valuing clarity and precision as the highest virtue in philosophical discourse. I got a BS in philosophy in a very "analytic" school. And I am proud of this, because in my view, genius is wasted without clarity of thought. There are so many smart people capable of great abstract thinking, but the thoughts of those individuals are too often just a big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments. They never have the opportunity to tap the gold mine and share it with everyone else. But I digress. Even this virtue I mentioned varies from one A-philosopher to another. An analytic philosopher can be anyone; it just depends on who he/she is being compared to. The same goes for continental philosophers. Now I don't disregard these two terms as meaningless. It's just that they have no set objective features that set them apart from one another. The distinctions are really made strictly from personal sentiment and perceived correlations, and that even goes for myself.
|
Apologies for not reading the whole thread.
Here's a relevant quote from a notable philosopher:
I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
So I'm with travis on this one
On December 05 2010 11:31 travis wrote:
I like ideas not names and classifications. Let's discuss ideas!
And now to read the thread and see if I should eat my hat.
|
I'm gonna have to disagree with some of the things people have said earlier in this thread about Derrida. I haven't really read any of Derrida's earlier work which are the things that kinda defines a great deal of who he is, so I won't really talk about any of that. But my contact with his later work like The Gift of Death has left a pretty good impression on me and I find that I have learned a great deal from it. To say that he was simply someone who translated Heidegger seems like a far too rash statement as well, Heidegger was translated long before he came into the scene and his role in rescuing Heidegger from both Sartre and the various people that attacked Heidegger's philosophy because of Heidegger's involvement with the Nazis isn't really something that can be ignored.
|
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 14:52 [Ryuzaki] wrote:
I think if you measure philosophy by its practical uses for society, it yields a more immediate answer.
Analytical philosophy seems to me to be conducted by those who like undergoing a form of logical arithmetic, or intra-cerebral exercise. Merely another way of ensuring the brain doesn't atrophy.
I'd consider the primary reason that analytical psychology is less useful at the moment is because of problems relating to divergence of cognition.
This means a right answer may only be correct to a single person because it's logical correctness is only relative to that person perception of it and it will usually be flawed in that it won't take into account the variables which caused that perception in the first place. Just like a holistic view.
Continental philosophy tends to have more practical implications because of it's belief value and how belief affects judgement and the psyche. People will understand action and reaction and merely form their beliefs around that.
However I'm cynical that it will ever result in understanding the metaphysical, which, if I'm correct is a primary aim in philosophy. However in saying this, I doubt analytical philosophy will yield anything more than an aid in understanding neuroscience and a list of possibilities for scientists to test.
Either way I find both interesting.
These are opinions based on a limited knowledge; tell me what you think. ♪♪
Now my opinion on the distinction: The irony of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that analytic philosophers use it. In many ways it is a psuedo-distinction, like trying to decide whether a pile of straw is big enough to be a heap or not. There is no single set of features that will always set apart the C-philosopher from the A. Commonly, the analytic philosopher is known for valuing clarity and precision as the highest virtue in philosophical discourse. I got a BS in philosophy in a very "analytic" school. And I am proud of this, because in my view, genius is wasted without clarity of thought. There are so many smart people capable of great abstract thinking, but the thoughts of those individuals are too often just a big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments. They never have the opportunity to tap the gold mine and share it with everyone else. But I digress. Even this virtue I mentioned varies from one A-philosopher to another. An analytic philosopher can be anyone; it just depends on who he/she is being compared to. The same goes for continental philosophers. Now I don't disregard these two terms as meaningless. It's just that they have no set objective features that set them apart from one another. The distinctions are really made strictly from personal sentiment and perceived correlations, and that even goes for myself.
But this "big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments" is sometimes (not always) a great source of creativity. Nietzsche using aphorism & poetry is an exemple by itself : his writing style is also a way to build his philosophy.
I'm not sure that "analytic = clarity" and "continental = blur of concepts", but I think that philosophy need both people who can express their idea to anyone with indiscutable logic and people who are difficult to understand: even the interpretation and the interaction between the two type is a source of creativity by itself.
Searching the better between the two is a mystake; both are needed so that human knowledge rise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
