“continental philosophers generally reject scientism, the view that the natural sciences are the only or most accurate way of understanding phenomena. This contrasts with analytic philosophers, many of whom have considered their inquiries as continuous with, or subordinate to, those of the natural sciences” wiki…
I’m with the continental krew baby nothing more boring than a Bertrand Russell.
yaaas
Bertrand Russell was the man, nothing boring about that guy.
What do you propose as a better way to understand natural phenomena?
And I agree with WWIII, Russell was the shit.
Phenomenology obviously.
Russell didn’t like Nietzsche so was clearly a donkey.
Russell had more in common with Nietzsche than he thought. Russell was an idiot about many things, but what he was good at makes him one of the all time greats.
Explain. Obviously.
Faust, I am interested in this idiocy of Russell. Please advise
He came up with a teapot Faust. So what?
Continental thinkers have suggested science depends upon a “pre-theoretical substrate of experience” (Kant - the phenomenological concept of the “lifeworld”).
According to the Continentals scientific methods are incapable of revealing such conditions of intelligibility.
Critchley, Simon (1998), “Introduction: what is continental philosophy?”, in Critchley, Simon; Schroder, William, A Companion to Continental Philosophy, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, p. 115 .
Science is incapable of telling us how we understand our experiences?
That’s one part of it.
The first basic principle grounding Searle’s theory of consciousness is that consciousness is irreducible. This is a nice example of an Analytic philosopher pointing to one of the limitations of Analytic Philosophy.
Searle is a prime example of a philosopher grounded in the Anglo-Saxon analytical tradition and his limitations were illustrated perfectly by his inability to engage with the continental phenomenological tradition. He demonstrated this in the early 70s when he bombed in a debate with Derrida on Speech Act theory.
That strikes me as a sort of God of the gaps theory of consciousness. Not to say it’s wrong, just presumptuous. And it’s nothing outside the scope of science, to be sure.
Nah.
It is quite clear that consciousness cannot be reduced to material brain states because the phenomenology of subjective experience is by definition not a pillar of the myth of objectivism.
No idea what that’s supposed to mean.
I’m with the analytics, mostly. Wittgenstein showed that there’s room for the continental within the analytic tradition if you look hard enough.
Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s thing but he’s probably talking about materialism. Of course neglecting naturalism, which is still analytic…
…
seems like you’re just saying experiences aren’t made of stuff
Yes this is true.
I set up a dualism to inspire a bit of “intellectual sparring” so to speak.
Ruddy marvelous.
as far as continentals go, Kant did a lot for philosophy. I love that as Wittgenstein was an analytic he left the continent. I’m not one for spiritualism or fate but that’s a pretty nifty coincidence. I also think the vienna circle was probably in the wrong place.