Analytic vs. Continental Philosophy

[KidA41]

I’m pretty new to this philosophy stuff, but it seems to be that generally Analytic Philosophy results in much clearer interpretation of truth, while continental appeals to our artistic need to view the human condition as more than just brute scientific facts.

I was just interested in hearing peoples thoughts on the merits or defects of the two traditions. Does one appeal to you more? Do you feel the same pull towards their two different natures that I mentioned above? Do you think Continental will ever have a stronger presence in America? Does analytic have any kind of presence on the continent at all?

Interested to hear what you all have to say on this!

[Alexistentialism]

I couldn’t disagree more. but hell what do i know:

for me continental philosophy begins with the linguistic turn and husserl. it began with a ultimate change in the way we think of epistemology. the linguistic turn helped us to view the affects of grammar on the way we learn, think, know, etc. the tool of communication starting re-opening up for us in a way unlike before. thus deconstruction and playing with words in order to re-take control over our own tool. its as if our tool, words and language, starting to control us instead.

husserl realized that to think of objectivity is utterly separate from subjectivity was to be dishonest with one’s self. think of the scientific method: considered totally objective. science=objective. but, this methodology and systematic objectivity is always processed through the subject. hence, subjectivity and objectivity are different, but connected. it is this connection that needs to be focused on…ok, that last part is my interests anyways.

existentialism is around to stay. a lot of continental philosophy takes it seriously, heidegger, neitzsche, sartre, etc.

will americans ever catch on to continental philosophy? maybe if americans first catch on to philosophy in general.

I think analytic is clearer because its older. its a style of ration thinking that we humans have gotten good at, but we have to keep on moving ahead. when it comes to theoretical thinking its wise to be wary of the new, but to ignore it is to be blind.

thanKS

[Alexistentialism]

@Alexistentialism

I couldn’t disagree more. but hell what do i know:

for me continental philosophy begins with the linguistic turn and husserl. it began with a ultimate change in the way we think of epistemology. the linguistic turn helped us to view the affects of grammar on the way we learn, think, know, etc. the tool of communication starting re-opening up for us in a way unlike before. thus deconstruction and playing with words in order to re-take control over our own tool. its as if our tool, words and language, starting to control us instead.

husserl realized that to think of objectivity as utterly separate from subjectivity was to be dishonest with one’s self. think of the scientific method: considered totally objective. science=objective. but, this methodology and systematic objectivity is always processed through the subject. hence, subjectivity and objectivity are different, but connected. it is this connection that needs to be focused on…ok, that last part is my interest anyways.

existentialism is around to stay. a lot of continental philosophy takes it seriously, heidegger, neitzsche, sartre, etc.

will americans ever catch on to continental philosophy? maybe if americans first catch on to philosophy in general.

I think analytic is clearer because its older. its a style of rational thinking that we humans have gotten good at, but we have to keep on moving ahead. when it comes to theoretical thinking its wise to be wary of the new, but to ignore it is to be blind.

thanKS

[KidA41]

@Alexistentialism

I couldn’t disagree more. but hell what do i know:

for me continental philosophy begins with the linguistic turn and husserl. it began with a ultimate change in the way we think of epistemology. the linguistic turn helped us to view the affects of grammar on the way we learn, think, know, etc. the tool of communication starting re-opening up for us in a way unlike before. thus deconstruction and playing with words in order to re-take control over our own tool. its as if our tool, words and language, starting to control us instead.

husserl realized that to think of objectivity is utterly separate from subjectivity was to be dishonest with one’s self. think of the scientific method: considered totally objective. science=objective. but, this methodology and systematic objectivity is always processed through the subject. hence, subjectivity and objectivity are different, but connected. it is this connection that needs to be focused on…ok, that last part is my interests anyways.

existentialism is around to stay. a lot of continental philosophy takes it seriously, heidegger, neitzsche, sartre, etc.

will americans ever catch on to continental philosophy? maybe if americans first catch on to philosophy in general.

I think analytic is clearer because its older. its a style of ration thinking that we humans have gotten good at, but we have to keep on moving ahead. when it comes to theoretical thinking its wise to be wary of the new, but to ignore it is to be blind.

thanKS

I like a lot of what you say. As I mentioned, I’m a novice, but I have a strong interest in continental (Heidegger, Neitzsche, Sartre, Foucalt, Derrida, whoever) and I almost feel guilty about it, knowing the disdain many Analytic philosophers have felt about the genre.

Here’s a question though: Regarding your first paragraph, is the Continental obsession with meaning and deconstruction so much different from logical atomism, Wittgensteinian Philosophy and the Ordinary Language Analysis in essence? What are your thoughts on this?

[Obw]

@KidA41

I’m pretty new to this philosophy stuff, but it seems to be that generally Analytic Philosophy results in much clearer interpretation of truth, while continental appeals to our artistic need to view the human condition as more than just brute scientific facts.

Spot on. Continental philosophy is a bit wishy-washy if you’re after truth. Plenty of people are happy to step onto the path that ultimately leads to existentialism, semantic literalisation and playing with creativity, but there is something far less noble about doing so, perhaps even degrading. As it is, English Literature students can do all that better anyway.

You’ve also noticed, it seems, that continental philosophy has a very different set of seeds at its roots. This is why knowledge of the history of philosophy is so crucial - knowing why things are, where they have come from etc saves you a great deal of wasted time and effort. Analytic philosophy is philosophy for the sake of understanding and truth, whereas much of continental philosophy is philosophy for writers, poets, artists and philosophy’s sake. Both have their place but I’m sure it’s clear which one I prefer. Obviously there are exceptions in both areas.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Obw

Obviously there are exceptions in both areas.

I’m not even so sure that the two are so dissimilar - they’re both based in Kant, as far as I can see. That’s partly a function of Kant trying to be the new Aristotle and write about every philosophical issue available to him, but it’s also because Kant, while tedious, clarified a hell of a lot of arguments. When I read Husserl or Russell I’m reminded of Kant. Then there’s Wittgenstein, who is neither an analytical philosopher nor a continental philosopher. And then there’s Heidegger, who appears to be both. And then there’s Hume, who is an analytical philosopher who argues to continental conclusions.

I think that you’d have to take it argument by argument to see which one was the more ‘wishy washy’. Both are capable of the most astounding vagueness and presumption. I’m a little surprised that you, of all people, particularly after your very accurate criticism of my rather blase comments about academia, would tar the two traditions with such broad brushes and in such contrasting colour schemes.

As it is, English Literature students can do all that better anyway.

I’ll take that as an insult.

@KidA41

I’m pretty new to this philosophy stuff,

Hence why you’re still calling it ‘this philosophy stuff’…
(no offence, I just found it a quaint phrase given your admission)

but it seems to be that generally Analytic Philosophy results in much clearer interpretation of truth, while continental appeals to our artistic need to view the human condition as more than just brute scientific facts.

Well, modern scientific philosophy was founded on Comte, as I understand it. Analytical philosophy takes a lot of that for granted, whereas the purpose of phenomenology (essentially a continental philosophy) is to query the very basis of empirical experience as a means to knowledge (the question of synthetic a priori knowledge et al).

And there are philosophers of both types who show that there are no ‘brute scientific facts’. This is all a roundabout way of saying that neither school is more scientific than the other and that both are so intertwined that you’d have to make an assessment on an argument-by-argument basis.

I was just interested in hearing peoples thoughts on the merits or defects of the two traditions.

Both are rooted in Kant. Analytical philosophy is for people who want words to maintain their meanings over time. Continental philosophy is for people who know otherwise.

Does one appeal to you more?

Continental, in its more analytical ventures.

Do you feel the same pull towards their two different natures that I mentioned above?

Well, I’m interested in and inspired by philosopher from all over, and I don’t conceive of the two traditions as being so seperate as some make out.

Do you think Continental will ever have a stronger presence in America?

No idea. I know sketchy and piecemeal stuff about the American academic system.

Does analytic have any kind of presence on the continent at all?

Yes. It originated there.

[krossie]

some one: And then there’s Hume, who is an analytical philosopher who argues to continental conclusions.

He he - I like it - reading him at the minute and liking it.

I dunno about this wierd dualism here - just dividing all modern philosphy into 2 absolute catogaries doesn’t do anyone justice- even Deleuze has his moments where he appears quite analytical mind you he swings all over!

Krossie

[Faust]

kid - I cannot recommend my advice, but only give it. Forget these distinctions. There are no philosophies, but only philosophers.

[detrop]

Continental philosophy is contingent because when the pangea existed, there were no continents, and therefore no continental philosophy. The entire movement is a slippery-slope, or in this case, a slippery-fault-line.

[Nothingness]

…a thought comes to my mind that Continental philosophy is irrational whereas Analytic is rational…

[Alexistentialism]

OBW: “playing with creativity, but there is something far less noble about doing so”

can you explain why creativity is not noble…or “less” so?

[jeffl]

Very interesting discussion.

@Alexistentialism

OBW: “playing with creativity, but there is something far less noble about doing so”

can you explain why creativity is not noble…or “less” so?

Can i ask; what are you being creative with? What is your canvas?

To be creative in an honest, traditional sense is the roll of an artisan, a craftsman. To be creative with people’s lives is to be manipulative; and that’s wrong. And Obw’s point about literature has some ground, i think, in the fact that it is a more honest way to manipulate; if that’s possible.

[Obw]

@Alexistentialism

OBW: “playing with creativity, but there is something far less noble about doing so”

can you explain why creativity is not noble…or “less” so?

Well no, you musn’t take that sentence out of context. I am not saying creativity is not a noble pursuit in the right place but that that place is not Philosophy. It’s an ambiguous word, and of course one can be “creative” with thinking while still employing a rigid system of thought. That is also not what I mean to pooh-pooh.

Being creative implies, typically, a system of action or thought which is less than concerned for what avenues it might take or what conclusions it might reach. Indeed, the wonderful thing about creative process is that you concentrate on the process itself and the end points reached are a mystery and uncontrolled. It’s an unresponsible system, the creative process, which is exactly why it is so marvellous. But it is no use to us as Philosophers beyond prompting inspiration for quite separate systems and processes. It cannot be directly at the wheel as it seems to be with so much continental ‘Philosophy’.

[philosophemer]

I favor analytic philosophy over continental philosophy only because continental philosophy seems far more prone to devising ad hoc arguments that lack much of a basis in reality. Now, as far as the Enlightenment goes, I could only assume the empiricists (except Berkeley) would fit as analytic philosophers, where the rest split as continental philosophers.

Is there much to a possible claim that the analytic/continental division is like the empiricist/rationalist division? They seem to share some common features.

[Alexistentialism]

OBW:

Well no, you musn’t take that sentence out of context. I am not saying creativity is not a noble pursuit in the right place but that that place is not Philosophy.

…

Being creative implies, typically, a system of action or thought which is less than concerned for what avenues it might take or what conclusions it might reach. Indeed, the wonderful thing about creative process is that you concentrate on the process itself and the end points reached are a mystery and uncontrolled. It’s an unresponsible system, the creative process, which is exactly why it is so marvellous. But it is no use to us as Philosophers beyond prompting inspiration for quite separate systems and processes. It cannot be directly at the wheel as it seems to be with so much continental ‘Philosophy’.

I think your comments open up an excellent question: what is creativity? why is there creativity? etc. the question of creativity…to create. Is creation reckless and irresponsible? Now i’m rethinking theology and our theories of creation.
Creation is dynamic and continuous, as the Pre-Socs and Post-Socs noticed, but also fact. Think of it as the transition from potentiality (dunamis) to actuality (entelecheia or energeia).
Creativity…in its apparent subjectivity, is the truth. To seek the truth is to incorporate creativity because it is an unavoidable aspect of life. However, the difference between change and creativity should be discussed too (atleast I see the connection…I’m not sure if others do…so tell me).
Its not that we ought to manipulate people and the truth…which is a ridiculous bias i might add (Jeffl:

To be creative with people’s lives is to be manipulative; and that’s wrong.

)…its that the truth isn’t separate from creativity.

[Obw]

Dunamis is a powerfully greek word and all philosophy requires it. In this sense, defined as you define it (or rather, perhaps you have illuminated me on a trail of thought I had not considered) I would agree that creativity has a place in Philosophy. I was, I suppose, thinking in far more modern terms; perhaps the term is overused nowadays.

I don’t see a great connection between change and creativity - perhaps you can elucidate.

It occurs to me there is also something entirely creative (Creative) in analytic philosophy too. I need a better explanation for the “fluffy”-ness of some philosophy.

[abe1ng]

I’m not big on the distinction between the two but have always been drawn to European.

In my mind, Analytic defines a specific concept thus automatically drawing boundaries. European philosophy attempts to be more holistic, tackling a huge picture all in one go.

I love the expansiveness of Heidegger whilst admiring the precision of the Analytics. Surely the precision of the analytics enlightens the ambitions of the Europeans.

I’ve never been good on technical terminology, but it strikes me that Derida’s views on ‘Difference’ really begins to tackle the boundaries that dog philosophy.

Creativity is surely going beyond the boundaries. But who draws the boundaries, are they really there and what is beyond them.

Sorry if that sounds a bit spooky, not intended, but it is an area that in itself fascinates me.

[Alexistentialism]

[Mearsult]

From what I know about continental philosophy, which is much, for I read camus, sartre, and Neitzche (along with others) it seems the continental school is more into the ontological, and metaphysical aspects of philosophy, while the Analytical school, is more into espitiemology and logic. Continental requires one to think outside of one’s boundaries, to derive ansewer to its question while the anyalitical school wants us to deduce our within our boundaries. As far as Ontology and metaphysics go, continental is where its at, because you must be a way from the picture to see it.

[Obw]

What? Wait wait wait… what is all this talk about “boundaries”?

And if you mean you have to be able to make stuff up to do metaphysics, then I heartily agree.