Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other?

Post by Spectrum » June 3rd, 2018, 1:21 am

Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other at Present?
Anyone has any knowledge or news on this?

Anyone prefer or bias to either analytic and continental philosophy?

Personally I am eclectic and pick whatever is relevant from any side and from whatever the sources.

Here is an article relating to the topic.
The term “continental philosophy” was, as Simon Critchley and Simon Glendinning have emphasized, to an important extent the invention of analytic philosophers of the mid-20th century who wanted to distinguish themselves from the phenomenologists and existentialists of continental Europe.
These analytic philosophers (Gilbert Ryle was a leading figure) regarded the continental appeal to immediate experience as a source of subjectivity and obscurity that was counter to their own ideals of logical objectivity and clarity. The analytic-continental division was institutionalized in 1962, when American proponents of continental philosophy set up their own professional organization, The Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP), as an alternative to the predominantly (but by no means exclusively) analytic American Philosophical Association (APA).

Many philosophers at leading American departments are specialists in metaphysics: the study of the most general aspects of reality such as being and time. The major work of one of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century, Martin Heidegger, is “Being and Time,” a profound study of these two topics. Nonetheless, hardly any of these American metaphysicians have paid serious attention to Heidegger’s book.

The standard explanation for this oddity is that the metaphysicians are analytic philosophers, whereas Heidegger is a continental philosopher. Although the two sorts of philosophers seldom read one another’s work, when they do, the results can be ugly. A famous debate between Jacques Derrida (continental) and John Searle (analytic) ended with Searle denouncing Derrida’s “obscurantism” and Derrida mocking Searle’s “superficiality.”

The distinction between analytic and continental philosophers seems odd, first of all, because it contrasts a geographical characterization (philosophy done on the European continent, particularly Germany and France) with a methodological one (philosophy done by analyzing concepts). It’s like, as Bernard Williams pointed out, dividing cars into four-wheel-drive and made-in-Japan. It becomes even odder when we realize that some of the founders of analytic philosophy (like Frege and Carnap) were Europeans, that many of the leading centers of “continental” philosophy are at American universities, and that many “analytic” philosophers have no interest in analyzing concepts.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... al-divide/
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

chondriac
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 9:20 pm

Re: Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other?

Post by chondriac » June 19th, 2018, 12:26 am

I don't really believe in it. Synthesis and classification are approaches to uncovering and they're useful for different aspects of a concept, but what I think is important is if the conceptualization can rely on itself when applied to the purposes it presupposes. Another factor I think that led to "continental vs. analytical" is just that people in their respective camps weren't reading each others stuff.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other?

Post by Spectrum » June 19th, 2018, 10:32 pm

chondriac wrote:
June 19th, 2018, 12:26 am
I don't really believe in it. Synthesis and classification are approaches to uncovering and they're useful for different aspects of a concept, but what I think is important is if the conceptualization can rely on itself when applied to the purposes it presupposes. Another factor I think that led to "continental vs. analytical" is just that people in their respective camps weren't reading each others stuff.
I think it is not difficult for the Continental philosophers to read the Analytical philosophies which do not include the subject into the equation. Generally, the Analyticals' works are grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e.
Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
The Continental ideas in general are of the philosophical anti-realism types.
But I believe the Analytical did read the Continental works but they were only scratching the surface due to the difficulty of grasping the the Continental ideas. Here are some condemnations by the Analyticals on Heidegger [a Continentalist];
Wiki wrote:Bertrand Russell commented, expressing the sentiments of many mid-20th-century analytic philosophers, that:

Highly eccentric in its terminology, his philosophy is extremely obscure. One cannot help suspecting that language is here running riot. An interesting point in his speculations is the insistence that nothingness is something positive. As with much else in Existentialism, this is a psychological observation made to pass for logic.[129]

Roger Scruton stated that: "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it"
Personally I believe the Continentalists' philosophies [taking the subject into account] are more 'realistic' because reality has to be inclusive of the subject [the person / self] and not independent of the subject.

I do not believe it is a case of either/or but the Analytical and the Continential philosophies should be taken up in complementarity with each other like what most Eastern philosophies have done.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2878
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Are the Analytical and Continental Philosophers Still Battling Each Other?

Post by Burning ghost » June 20th, 2018, 2:25 am

I have always been curious what is meant by “eastern philosophy” in comparison to “western philosophy.” Honestly I used to think there was an “eastern philosophy” but now I just call it mysticism with an admixture of political theory.

I cannot see how something can be called “philosophy” if reason is left as a mere after thought. It is almost like suggesting there is a western and eastern mathematics isn’t it? Seems a bit of a misguided dielineation don’t you think?

The issue for me about these contrasts seems to rise when dealing with subjectivity. We’re forever trying to hold water in our hands, and those with sense merely pay attention to the sensation rather than get carried away trying to grip it tighter in order to “know” more. Of course both approaches can do a lot to compliment each other and we’re all stuck in our own little ways doign our own little thing to some degree.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply