• Shawn
    I tried starting a topic on the difference between Continental and Analytic philosophy, but I don't think I'm up for the caliber of the topic subject.

    The topic subject is the difference between Continental and Analytic philosophy, and whether a bridge can be built between the two. It seems like a trifling issue nowadays, as Sarte, Heidegger, and others have pretty much said everything that can be said about existentialism from within Continental philosophic tradition. Yet, in a Hegelian fashion, the problem will still continue to persist as long as our governing institutions and science and socio-political landscape continue to change and influence human behavior.

    So, here is the article:


    And, here is my sentiment expressed in degrees of clarity above my own ability as they presently stand:

    What are we to do with analytic and continental philosophy, then? Neil Levy makes a great and simple wish when he writes that we “could hope to combine the strengths of each: to forge a kind of philosophy with the historical awareness of continental philosophy and the rigor of analytic philosophy.” (Metaphilosophy, Vol. 34, No.3.) If we are to keep a balance, we must understand that both camps have methods, trajectories, and emphasis that can be honored and incorporated into a synthesis. This is not to mean that we must believe everything. Rather, we should realize that there are correct and incorrect starting points, methods and answers in both analytic and continental philosophy. What a philosopher is dealing with – specifically, what question she’s trying to answer – largely determines what emphasis she will have. Yet philosophy can also be done interchangeably?: there is a way of doing analytic phenomenology, and of doing phenomenological analysis; scientific history and historically-minded science; epistemological ethics and ethical epistemology.

    Note: I presented this in Politics and Current affairs, perhaps wrongly and if a moderator thinks this belongs somewhere else except the Lounge, please let me know why and I'll change the topic category appropriately.
  • Valentinus
    Thorny topic. Guaranteed to piss off everybody. I like it.

    It seems to me that how we talk about some one or thing being an agent is the fork in the road.
    Maybe a cast back in time to William James promulgating Pragmatism is a way to start since he thought there could be some path that included both.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.