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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I picked continental, just because I tend to agree with the philosophers of that school a little more (Heidegger, Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, generic marxism to a lesser extent)
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.
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'm only finishing up an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, so my breadth isn't terribly wide, but I think I find myself more easily getting into more analytic stuff. For being someone who hasn't had a chance to read a whole lot, it's easier to jump into the middle of stuff written in that way and have an idea of where it's headed. The bigger ideas written in the continental "tradition", if you will, takes an immense amount of effort and time to just understand their semantics, language, even logic. ):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
I m french so i'm going for continental (Foucault is something else, althought I also read Wittgenstein a lot). 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?).
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 18:18 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!
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.
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?
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 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 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 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.
On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote: 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.
yay levinas.
the observation that continental philosophy is like literature is exactly right. continental philosphers' creativity with language allows for more expression by the original philosopher, but there is the side effect of making that philosophy less conducive to analysis. this is not only because of the fact that new words are being coined, i do think the complaint of "inbreeding" has at least a grain of truth.
once a philosopher reaches a certain level of notoriety, then she will have a bank of "key words" that are taken as primitive almost. continental types seem to find the exercise of divining what the master meant very interesting, analytic types want to break the master's words down into their elementary particles, and in the process digest the master completely. now, the way analytics keep a tight lit on what words are used when is not because they are boring. it's because having a standard of precision allows for better critical analysis, especially the incremental refinement that makes up the bulk of what analytic philosophy does.
this makes reading continental philosophy perhaps more interesting, but personally i prefer that they all write in the analytic style but keep saying what they want to say.
I've studied Philosophy but not enough to ever touch upon this discussion(unless my memory betrays me).
Perhaps it's not enough to compare Sartre and Wittgenstein but they're the ones I know the best from both "sides" of it. I ended up continental, my reasoning behind it is the same thought that made me end my philosophy studies in favor of Anthropology.
-Nihilism is in my eyes a truth beyond reasonable doubt unless there's a "deception God" who created our world with absolute values and made our minds capable of such questioning, 1+1=2/3 etc. But when it all comes around we are doomed to believe and give value, as with Nihilism many many philosophy discussions deal with ideas we impossibly can implement on human life. Nihilism might be true but no human being can believe, since the theory goes against itself, when depending on belief.
Existentialism is where I've ended up as a idealist, humanist, my logic enjoys philosophy which can be applied on a human mind and used in life and lead somewhere.
To me the difference which philosophical path we'd choose here is within our search for "truth above all" vs a idealistic perhaps more harmonic life where u give value through belief, culture is always gonna throw us up and down in that area. At least those were the options to me since going half way with analytical philosophy wasn't an option to my overanalytical mind.
After depressions, life's twists and turns and relating too much to Wittgensteins life (only feeling alive when close to death) my logic slowly turned, I CBT'd my way from it. If life is more rewarding when being harmonic, happy, rather than wittgensteins everlasting questioning, analyzing then Sartres philosophy is also mine.
So continental is my choice but I'd gladly hear your motivations for analytical philosophy since my mind seems to be closed to it!
[Kishkumen wrote: 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.
[/B] yay levinas.
the observation that continental philosophy is like literature is exactly right. continental philosphers' creativity with language allows for more expression by the original philosopher, but there is the side effect of making that philosophy less conducive to analysis. this is not only because of the fact that new words are being coined, i do think the complaint of "inbreeding" has at least a grain of truth.
once a philosopher reaches a certain level of notoriety, then she will have a bank of "key words" that are taken as primitive almost. continental types seem to find the exercise of divining what the master meant very interesting, analytic types want to break the master's words down into their elementary particles, and in the process digest the master completely. now, the way analytics keep a tight lit on what words are used when is not because they are boring. it's because having a standard of precision allows for better critical analysis, especially the incremental refinement that makes up the bulk of what analytic philosophy does.
this makes reading continental philosophy perhaps more interesting, but personally i prefer that they all write in the analytic style but keep saying what they want to say.
I completely agree! But it being a philosophy thread makes it inevidable for me not to add my thoughts. I think creating and using difficult terms not only has a "for the science" worth. there's a boring shallow subconscious reason behind them. They are the diamonds, status symboled clothing but for intellectuals,
The swedish universities try to push the social science writing towards simplicity and easy wording, I agree with it since the function of it all ought to be understanding for all. Even though I'm one of the shallow ones and I still use as difficult wording as possible, as it brings higher grades, is a funny part of the writing.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: Very interesting indeed, there is truth in what you say, but there is much more to this as well.
What more would you consider there is in relation to the practical societal implications of philosophy? You say later "Contemporary philosophy is more focused on government and human affairs", but I haven't seen the application.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: I will say that I don't think metaphysics is necessarily the primary aim of philosophy.
I considered that ultimately philosophy's purpose would be for understanding the metaphysical; but this may be completely wrong and I'm most likely missing something else. I certainly agree that it is not currently the primary aim, but still a primary aim.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
I think I was attempting to state my view that, scientifically, it may be impossible for an A-philosopher to find 'truth' because there are implications of relativism in cognition for logical answers relative to the person trying to find them. For C-philosophers, I thought the logic of science would not even come into play.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
This seems more on the verge of psychology to me. But I guess that view in itself would be a philosophy.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
In relation to truth, I agree with you on what you said about those who are skilled in abstract thought. However I think that C-philosophers often share thoughts through art (subjective) or other forms of culture (ethics, morals and understandings of functionalism); hence why I would consider an architect ultimately subservient to an artist. The reason I would say they can't communicate it to others with language, is because language is restricting. I would think that anyone who speaks multiple languages would agree; the more words which you have at your disposal to form a literal sentence facilitates understanding from both sides. It's difficult to communicate great concepts to an audience who aren't yet able to understand them, especially when there is no language to support it. (hence art)
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.
You misinterpret my point. I never said that this lack of clarity was the plague of all continental philosophers. That would render moot my point that the distinction is unfounded. Analytic is correlated with clarity. Continental has its own virtues, but not being an avid reader of "this group of people" I can't really tell you what it is. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers mostly for his psychological view of philosophy. And I don't think his writing is very unclear either. The "big blur of concepts" refers to the undisciplined phase in the life of a brilliant mind, prior to undergoing any philosophical training. It has little to do with continental philosophy.
Someone mentioned earlier (oneofthem I think) that analytic philosophy can be mind-numbingly difficult to understand, especially in higher level material, where the text presupposes that the reader already has a wealth of concepts necessary to make sense of all the 30 word - 250 character sentences (not an exaggeration). So that just goes to show further that the line between the two isn't so distinct after all.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: Very interesting indeed, there is truth in what you say, but there is much more to this as well.
What more would you consider there is in relation to the practical societal implications of philosophy? You say later "Contemporary philosophy is more focused on government and human affairs", but I haven't seen the application.
You know Marx and Engels were philosophers, right? Nietzsche had a big hand in society and still does. Vladimir Lenin ruled a nation for a short time. Go back further, and we can thank philosophers like John Locke for helping make America. Is this not what you mean by practical societal implications? Metaphysics tends not to swing people as well as political theory.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
I think I was attempting to state my view that, scientifically, it may be impossible for an A-philosopher to find 'truth' because there are implications of relativism in cognition for logical answers relative to the person trying to find them. For C-philosophers, I thought the logic of science would not even come into play.
Oh, I don't think this is a real difference between continental and analytic.If what you say is true, that there are implications of relativism in cognition, both would suffer. Continental philosophers don't follow the creed "ignore science and logic."
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
This seems more on the verge of psychology to me. But I guess that view in itself would be a philosophy.
Bear in mind, where there is a philosophy of X, X can be just about anything. And philosophers who are interested in the problem of other minds, the problem of self, and "personhood" can and are addressed with both psychology and neuroscience. I can honestly say there is a branch in my philosophy department that will go to MRI scans for answers to life's deepest questions.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote: 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.
In relation to truth, I agree with you on what you said about those who are skilled in abstract thought. However I think that C-philosophers often share thoughts through art (subjective) or other forms of culture (ethics, morals and understandings of functionalism); hence why I would consider an architect ultimately subservient to an artist. The reason I would say they can't communicate it to others with language, is because language is restricting. I would think that anyone who speaks multiple languages would agree; the more words which you have at your disposal to form a literal sentence facilitates understanding from both sides. It's difficult to communicate great concepts to an audience who aren't yet able to understand them, especially when there is no language to support it. (hence art)
True, language is restricting. But when you have something very specific you are trying to convey, art and poetry are not the answer. In the analytic tradition, precise communication is aided by creating more words. Hence why a lot of the literature is filled with big words that don't mean anything to the casual reader. Analytic philosophers create new words all the time. Usually this desire for precision DOES sacrifice audience, like you said. But if you want to speak philosophy purely as an artist, you will sacrifice precision for something else. For example, proverbs sacrifice precision to stimulate thought. Proverbs aren't and in most cases don't need to be precise. So formulating them in little phrases like food for thought makes people want to think about them, because they're so implicitly interesting. The forms of expression in philosophy all have their places, but imho if you want to be clear and precise, writing a boring analytic book is the way to go.
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
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by physics. Metaphysics, certainly. But, the actual physical functioning of the universe, I would say Plato didn't bother with too much seriously.
On the other hand, theology and Plato don't go together very well except in a very abstracted use of the word, theology. I don't see any very serious mentioning/interrogation on the theory of gods in the dialogues.
On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
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
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by physics. Metaphysics, certainly. But, the actual physical functioning of the universe, I would say Plato didn't bother with too much seriously.
On the other hand, theology and Plato don't go together very well except in a very abstracted use of the word, theology. I don't see any very serious mentioning/interrogation on the theory of gods in the dialogues.
On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
You're being extremely narrow in both of your definitions of physics and theology.
Physics, as in the make up of the world, laws of nature, etc. Plato did talk extensively on this. theory of forms, matter, etc.
theology, as in discussion of gods/creators/etc. Plato also talked extensively on this. Have you never heard of Platos demiurge?
On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
Who equated logic to science?
And please, make a logical proof defining Being. And I mean actually using logic, not just some sort of argumentative method(the two are widely different, ask a logician)
If you're talking about the demiurge from Timaeus, then yes Plato does talk about theology, but only so in his much later dialogues, and thus barely at all. I don't know how Plato's "theology" could prevent you from reading the more important/influential works of Plato.
As I said, I merely misunderstood what you meant by physics. I agree with you regarding his theory of forms--he did focus largely on what he saw as metaphusis. Extensively on matter? I would not say so.
Perhaps, I saw the "logic needs to be in a scientific way" somewhere else. And, I meant to write that you can use logic to attempt to define Being. It has been done before, see Descartes and many others.
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
On December 09 2010 22:34 allecto wrote: If you're talking about the demiurge from Timaeus, then yes Plato does talk about theology, but only so in his much later dialogues, and thus barely at all. I don't know how Plato's "theology" could prevent you from reading the more important/influential works of Plato.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
As I said, I merely misunderstood what you meant by physics. I agree with you regarding his theory of forms--he did focus largely on what he saw as metaphusis. Extensively on matter? I would not say so.
There was no distinction between metaphysics and physics then. Don't use the book "Metaphysics" as an example either, as that is a name made up for it about 1500 years after it was created.
And i'll say it for the third time, Platos theory of forms was directly related to what does and does not exist in a physical sense, etc. While he may have not been an atomist(and therefor more closely related to what we would call modern day physics) he still talked extensively on what was considered physics in his time.
Perhaps, I saw the "logic needs to be in a scientific way" somewhere else. And, I meant to write that you can use logic to attempt to define Being. It has been done before, see Descartes and many others.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote: Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues.
And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues.
And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way.
The Republic is a dialogue, and was written later on in Plato's career. Though I can see what your point is given that the Republic is such a recognized and pivotal work for Plato. Discussing the merit of the Forms is probably not suited for this thread as it would drag on for a while.
Seeing as Descartes was a continental philosopher, discussing him is on topic. I would have to disagree that his cogito argument regards his physical existence, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying by that statement. I don't think that consciousness is concerned with, above all, physical existence.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues.
And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way.
The Republic is a dialogue, and was written later on in Plato's career. Though I can see what your point is given that the Republic is such a recognized and pivotal work for Plato. Discussing the merit of the Forms is probably not suited for this thread as it would drag on for a while.
Seeing as Descartes was a continental philosopher, discussing him is on topic. I would have to disagree that his cogito argument regards his physical existence, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying by that statement. I don't think that consciousness is concerned with, above all, physical existence.
Just because he's a continental philosopher does not mean he discusses Being like the later continental philosophers.
You are misconstruing being and Being. You'd have to be. The cogito argument is an epistemological argument, on the justification on knowledge and if we can truly know anything.
dubito ergo cogito ergo sum, I doubt, therefor, I think, therefor I am. He used this to show an example of something that you could know, a self-justified belief. The very fact that he doubts, means he thinks, the fact that he thinks, means he exists. It was a response to skeptics who posited that you couldn't know even if you were real, because you couldn't prove it. Or you could be under the trickery of a demon, or brain-in-a-vat(the later name for it). His cogito argument proved the first bit, that you can know you exist, simply by questioning your existance. Epistemic, not existential.
He did not set out to prove Being. He set out to prove his knowledge of being.
I never said that he discusses anything like the later continental philosophers, just that he was one.
First off, there is no "dubito" in the statement, it is just "ego cogito ergo sum." Secondly, if we want to look at this argument in just the context of Descartes' beliefs, we could just take up the fact that he supported dualism and thus believed in a mind/body division with the act of cogitare coming from the mind something that just not physically exist but is (capital B--would be easier to explain in Italian, sorry if I'm not getting my point across as well as I would like). Thus, he seeks to prove his own Being. The argument may have started epistemic in nature but it grew into an argument for Being itself.
Again, I may be confusing what you mean by being and Being--the first thing that comes to my mind is l'essere dell'ente and l'ente, and I may be translating these incorrectly into the proper terminology in English.
Edit: I think I see what you are saying now. You are saying that he didn't argue about what Being itself is in general, instead focusing on the knowledge that he exists. Although I agree that this was the beginning of his theory, it flowered into more. To support this point requires an interesting argument--that is very linguistic, however, focusing around what "cogitare" actually means. I would have a hard time talking about it in English.
On December 11 2010 02:35 allecto wrote: I never said that he discusses anything like the later continental philosophers, just that he was one.
You said since he's a continental philosopher, it is fitting to assume he discusses the same things as later continental philosophers.
First off, there is no "dubito" in the statement, it is just "ego cogito ergo sum."
Depends on the translations if you really want to be pedantic about it.
Secondly, if we want to look at this argument in just the context of Descartes' beliefs, we could just take up the fact that he supported dualism and thus believed in a mind/body division with the act of cogitare coming from the mind something that just not physically exist but is (capital B--would be easier to explain in Italian, sorry if I'm not getting my point across as well as I would like). Thus, he seeks to prove his own Being. The argument may have started epistemic in nature but it grew into an argument for Being itself.
How are you even arguing this? The entirety of meditations is accepted as one of the key works in semi-modern epistemological philosophy. It has nothing to do with him trying to prove or show anything about Being. It was an example of showing a true, justified, belief. The rest of meditations is his attempt at proving god exists. You cannot possibly argue otherwise since you'd be arguing against almost every single philosophical scholar since Descartes died.
Again, I may be confusing what you mean by being and Being--the first thing that comes to my mind is l'essere dell'ente and l'ente, and I may be translating these incorrectly into the proper terminology in English.
Edit: I think I see what you are saying now. You are saying that he didn't argue about what Being itself is in general, instead focusing on the knowledge that he exists. Although I agree that this was the beginning of his theory, it flowered into more. To support this point requires an interesting argument--that is very linguistic, however, focusing around what "cogitare" actually means. I would have a hard time talking about it in English.
Being is a very specific term about a human and it's existence and it's relation to the world(in a nut shell). being is a generic term about a person physically existing (He's being silly, or X is being put over there).
On December 11 2010 10:23 oneofthem wrote: analytic philosophy only started in the late 19th/early 20th century. to say descartes is a "continental philosopher" is just silly.
Exactly, the continental/analytic divide only begins to gain any weight when you start talking about Anglo American thinkers (and immgirants to these countries) who were heavily influenced by Frege.
I'm not trying to argue that the meditations doesn't revolve around epistemology...all I was trying to point out was that it forms the basis for the rest of his attempt to prove god exists which naturally regards Being...
At this point, I feel that I'm talking about something different regarding Being, because I'm taking it to mean the Being of things that aren't people as well. Using the wax example, Descartes argues that he knows the wax is (B) still wax despite its appearance, and such, changing. Being, as I was taking it, is that which is not observable by the senses, the essence of the thing.
My point about Descartes being a continental philosopher is pretty useless.
Edit: Like I said I feel like I'm arguing something that isn't mutually exclusive, as I agree with the majority of the points made. It is most likely due to the different environment/style of philosophy that I have been learning and a lack of proper understanding of the terminology being used in English.
Nevertheless, I don't want to derail the thread with something off-topic. The analytic vs. continental debate has nothing really to do with this, and it had been pretty interesting so far, so perhaps this should be left for another time and another thread.
i got the problem and pretty much solve it but i dont know how to explain since i never got used to sides mentioned in the op tho i am aware of their meaning. sadly salvation is beyond both ways of descripting and defining values.
I feel that both schools of thought have something to contribute. I prefer some things about Analytical Philosophy and other things about Continental Philosophy. I wish people wouldn't get caught up in this argument. Take what you like from both sides. That's what I do.
On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote: Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
Being old does not entail being legitimate.
It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative.
On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote: Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
Being old does not entail being legitimate.
It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative.
Epistemology doesn't solve a problem because it IS the problem. It's trying to solve itself.
As for the language bit, you're just being pedantic. If you think philosophy is anything but a use of language and semantics, you're fooling yourself.
On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote: Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
Being old does not entail being legitimate.
It is old but has yet to solve a *single problem*, alongside metaphysics. Both are grounded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of language; that all words are names and that language is representative, not communicative.
Epistemology doesn't solve a problem because it IS the problem.
Well said. Epistemology isn't meant to "solve a problem."
That opinion was valid like 30 years ago but currently epistemology and metaphysics are the leading disciplines in analytic philosophy. Analysing language is always good but it will just give you a conceptual overview nothing more.
EPT
. And the many 3-4 syllable words intimidate me into not wanting to know...
.
