|
These are the two main kinds of philosophy currently taught in academic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is practised mainly in British and U.S. universities but also, to some extent, in Scandinavia. Continental philosophy is practised in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and to some extent Ireland. At the same time, the division is not completely geographic. Many Analytic philsophers have come from these countries and either emigrated or were taken up by analytic philosophers, and most British and U.S. institutions also cover a certain amount of Continental philosophy. Notably, the very names "Continental" and "Analytic" are not agreed upon by many philosophers who may not see themselves as belonging to a certain grouping, yet most do agree there exists this division and that it became so in the twentieth century. The most notable fact is that there are two kinds of philosophy, especially when one considers that, in the Western tradition, philosophy was the very theme that attempted to have no "locality" and to be the most general kind of discussion that was held between all nations. The division of philosophy into two "camps" is not so much because of some fundamental disagreement, but from self-isolation on both sides: most philosophers of both kinds do not read one another, and only discuss issues relevant to their own kind philosophy. Respectively, each kind of philosophy does philosophy in such a different way and concerning different matters that communication between the two is problematic. The history of this division is not easy to ascertain but it is thought to have occurred in the 1920s. Others maintain it goes back to the Kant, ie, Kant being the last "great" philosopher that both sides read. There are several different ways of seeing how these differences appear. There are different descriptions below which show that this underlying theme affects different characteristics of the two schools of western philosophy. The "World" Vs "Thought" Analytic philosophy centers on certain universal problems and divide philosophy into different, almost incommunicable, areas such as, the Philosophy of Science, the Philosophy of Mind, the Philosophy of Language, the Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.. Continental philosophy tends to deal with these issues holistically and focuses instead upon key thinkers and their themes, such as questions of life, death, anthropology, sexuality, politics, the body, history and the value of universality. The Text Vs the Issue The simple way of putting the difference may be this: most continental philosophers care first and foremost about traditional and current philosophic texts, the interpretations of them, and the progress seen through them of thought in general. On the other hand, most in the Analytic tradition care first and foremost about theses and the reasons for and against accepting them. Continental philosophy is interested in what had been achieved by the great philosophers in history and of today, and wants to interpret and use these to "go beyond" the initial ideas. Analytic philosophy is interested in theses and arguments, and why we should or should not believe them. Differences in use of Examples In continental philosophy it is more common to reference a writer's literature, novels and poetry, or real-life examples from cafes, work, etc.. In analytic philosophy it is more common to use imaginative leaps and "science fiction" thought experiments to discuss the possibility of an issue. Formal Logic Vs Logic as Logos Analytic philosophy generally uses formal logic and formal logical argumentation in explaining questions. This includes such things as the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction and argument style, such as argument 'ad absurdum', 'ad hominem', argument from authority, etc. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, tends to use Logic in the sense of the Greek, Logos as "discourse", to make manifest what one is 'talking about'. It also looks to a logic that is historically constituted, ie, that may contain contradictions but not contemporaneously. Descriptive Vs Critical Analytic philosophy often attempts to describe how things are in the world, how they must work or what might offer the most intuitive or "the best", description that can withstand fierce argumentative attacks. In this sense it is more empirical and tends to be more sympathetic toward science and less controvesial politically (except perhaps for the Analytic branch of Political Philosophy). Continental philosophy operates instead in a critical mode, and assumes that the state of the world is not something that is to be merely described but is also affected by our understanding of it. It often has a more antagonistic view toward science and sees politics as being important in all philosophy. Though notable there are some continental philosophers, eg, Marx or Deleuze, who are extreme empiricists. Historical Vs Escaping Tradition The Nineteenth century is the key moment for looking at how Analytic philosophy emerged as a new way of thinking. For Analytic philosophy the massive influence of Hegel on Universities in Europe and in Britain and the U.S. was too long and too claustaphobic. With Frege they saw a means of breaking also from an emerging psychologism and make a new start with a Philosophy of Language with a strong belief in formal logic and a science and mathematics that was logically groundable. Thus Analytic Philosophy rejected Hegel and his ideas of sublation and speculative/concrete thought and attempted a return to the "firmer" ground of formal logic. Along with Hegel other figures from that century remain uninteresting for most of the Analytic tradition. Continental philosophy, in contrast, always took up to some extent the challenge of previous philosophers as something to be given consideration, even if that was mostly in a critical manner. So for Continental philosophers, Hegel's ideas about history altering what is considered as "true", Marx's ideas that philsophy's goal is not the "interpretation" of the world, but the changing of the world, Nietzsche's ideas upon truth as interpretation and as the result of forces and will, and Heidegger's criticism of the Philosophy of Presence, are often addressed or form a background for discussion. At the same time, in certain non-traditional areas of Analytic philsophy, certain Hegelian ideas on history, though not under that name, have permeated through, eg, Kuhn, Quine. Pejorative Labellings Though the differences between these two forms of Western Philosophy are marked mostly by both sides ignoring one another. At times they have been rather pejoratively labelled. Sometimes Analytic philosophy is described as: boring, dry, un-engaged (politically) and concerned only with the veritas aeternitas. Continental Philosophy has been described as, willfully contradictory, obfuscated and overly rhetorical. However, it can be seen from the above sections describing their differences that such labelling is merely the extreme end of their usual activity. For example, Continental philosophies holistic attempt to include all philosophy and the history of philosophy is bound to make reading it a difficult task. On the other hand, Analytic philsophies breaking up of philosophy into various branches, eg, the Histoy of Ideas, the Philosophy of Mind, Political Philosophy, simplifies each area but also can lead to exclusions and a lack of synergy. Commonality between Analytic and Continental Both Continental and Analytic philosophers tend to ignore one another. Major founders of both traditions held PhDs and degrees, not in philosophy, but in Mathematics (Russell, Frege, Husserl). Coincidentally the issue of postmodern philosophy, and the issue of language which is associated with postmodernism arose on both sides from Wittgenstein's ideas on Language-games and Lyotard's use of this idea in defining the term Postmodernism. Both philosophies would count almost all major philosophers up to and including Kant, from pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, the Medievals, to Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, as being the fundamental thinkers and theme setters for philosophy. Both philosophies are academically centred, in that it is from the academy, the university, that they both gain respectability and publishing rights, notoriety etc.. The exceptions being of course, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard who were published independently and did most of their work well away from the university. They are most read in the continental tradition. Certain ideas have been given open coverage by both sides: Speech act theory, language-games, the idea of historical Paradigms and the phenomenology of intentionality. There has also been some suggestion that by outright rejection or neglect of one another's position, they can "cherry pick" ideas from the other tradition and repackage them, without having to credit the originators of the ideas. | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
 |
|
| |