Analytic vs continental hostility

Post Reply New Topic

This is a topic I've been interested in for a while, but it's hard to find any good information on the hostility present in these debates and was curious to hear out others who may be knowledgeable in this area.

To sum up, the 'analytical tradition' is a way of doing philosophy that has largely followed in the footsteps of Western tradition, using age-old categories such as epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and political theory. It's possible to root its opposition all the way back to Nietzsche, though the hostility doesn't seem to really take effect until a few prominent French philosophers and a few literary critics started talking more, leading up to what would later be called post-modernism later in the 20th century. In today's world, the education system in the U.S. is divided into two parts, the sciences (which take a strong analytic approach) and the humanities (that take a continental slant), though to be fair, the teacher you get probably has more to do with the philosophical positions you receive (whether they know it or not. Or at least this has been my experience).

The problem is that these two ways of viewing the world are mutually exclusive, with experts on the analytic side calling post-structuralism, post-modernism, psychoanalytic theory, literary theory, [...] a bunch of long-winded, non-sensical, psychobabble. Experts on the 'other side' tend to call analytic-based thought as naive, politically-blind, foundationless, and ignorant of other perspectives.

I realize I didn't provide any details as to what the conflict is about (or who's involved), as I assume this would be the heart of the issue and didn't want my views to influence how others might respond.

I find this conflict especially interesting, as there are very capable, intelligent individuals who seem so reasonable on their own terms, but can be utterly dismissive (and quite frankly, rude) of others' years of long work and education. They each talk as if "if only they could see it as I see it" is the only solution, but if it takes a PhD and a half worth of education to get to that point, what's the point? Are these perspectives truly irreconcilable (and undecidable)? (some of my pragmatic considerations)

At Sydney University, where I did my undergrad degree, there were actually two philosophy departments, at least from around 1973 up until the 1990s or later. One department ("General Philosophy") specialised in Continental Philosophy and the more "applied" branches of philosophy ("the philosophy of..." education, politics, etc); while the other department ("Traditional and Modern Philosophy") specialised in modern Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy, which has its roots in such traditions as logical positivism.

I cannot give you any literature on the split between these two divisions, off the top of my head, although it was very evident at my university.

As it happens, I always found the Continental position more interesting and challenging.

At the small junior college that I went to back in the late 70's, my professor of philosophy was definitely one of the 'continental' thinking minds of philosophy. In fact, his continuous mantra was that specialization in a technological society is the root of all ignorance. I enjoyed his approach of creativity and open mindedness and this way of teaching definitely opened new doors of conscious awareness for me.

However, I think both methods are required for lifelong continuing interest and growth in both the science and art of philosophy. Rigid logic is rigid is rigid logic, and while necessary can be extremely limiting, as the subconscious mind is always a fertile ground where OLD archetypical and NEW CREATIVE ideas can come, if freely cultivated, without the structural boundaries of the past, or present, as practiced by culture as is.

Socrates notion of I know nothing is not enough, in other words, for me. Socrates was a mystic as much as an analytic thinker, by what record there is of conjecture of his life; however, he did emphasize a necessary part of philosophy to me.

One can understand that the purpose of the education system moreover is to successfully continue civilization as is and improve the comforts of civilization for domesticated humans.

However, domestication of humans as a whole can be a great source of human suffering too, as most often civilization is associated with repression and oppression of our animal nature, most often emotions and sexual nature.

To even have the potential to escape this is to escape culture. And to escape culture is to look within, a constant mantra of deeper thinking human philosophies for thousands of years now.

But to look outside is equally important as well, and to develop a structure to navigate the construction of an ordered way of life. But again, in my opinion, to be successful at doing this in philosophy and life in general, one must cultivate the logical reasoned part of the mind as well as the emotional creative part of the mind in balance.

And yes, that can be extremely hard to do either in work or college, where the looming underlying task is to keep civilization working and comfortable for what is becoming a global tribe now.

The next two videos are interesting as they offer a mix of both.

But in the second video, what may seem like at first to be a very continental approach is actually one of the most rigid analytical approaches possible, relegating the meaning of life down to whether or not a man and wife can refrain from orgasm.

But it brings a whole new meaning to fundamentalist ways of looking at Abrahamic religions, where the sex act is actually the goal of life, in raising consciousness to a higher level. Unfortunately science was not around to understand the sex act better back then, to 'really' put it in its place of just a necessary bodily function, to make another life; whereas lust, as now shown by science, is truly the driving force of creativity instead of something 'evil'.

In my opinion, balance is the bottom line. And a balance of logic and creativity is definitely my way of philosophy. Which yes, does require continental and analytical philosophy working together not against each other. As for me, that oppositional ideology is nothing but mental masturbation. If I cannot get amazing effects and AFFECT out of the philosophy of life for my own life, evidenced as such, it is valueless to me, and nothing more than solving math equations, as a waste of time, in what I personally consider the connections of REAL LIFE.

To be clear, I understand you may not have the time or interest in the videos, but I offer them to the rest of the listening audience, who I personally consider NEVER the less. They are interesting for folks who do love to cultivate both the analytical and creative philosophical experience of human being; but only with an open mind; which simply means one not closed off to either science or art, logic or heart, reason or creativity; the list of metaphors for the dualistic nature of life, do go on. But again, that 'two' is part of philosophy, full philosophy not 'half' philosophy, ALL in my opinion, of course.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGb059xsDzI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A[/youtube]

I think both are valuable in the fight for truth.
Analytical = tactics
Continental =strategy

Another great example of the continental approach is Robert Anton Wilson's revised 1997 version of Prometheus Rising, where he takes a multi-disciplinary approach to the potential of human awakening/ enlightenment. I happened to come across the link from an Illuminati conspiracy theorist, likening him to a devil worshipper for going above common 'robotic' culturally/religiously prescribed routes of human being.

Fortunately his book is available free online now at the following link. It is only 284 pages long and a relatively easy read for me in about an hour. And yes, definitely worth the time for folks who want to live 'beyond the '4th neural circuit of life'.

The greatest inhibitor of true genius in human beings is a combination of specialization and closed mindedness, feeding each other into a reality of entropy of mind instead of potential self-actualization.

And in the book, the points made, provide clarity and better understanding, of why some folks in this forum are so stuck in the third metaphorical neural circuit of EVOLUTION of mind THAT IS possible, where there are potentially eight that can be pursued and self actualized in only one life.

But no, this is not possible with a closed mind, or specialization of knowledge.

Wilson leaves no stones unturned, ranging from the poetry of Aleister Crowley to Quantum Physics.

And he does realize his limitations too, as only human being.

Again, worth the time to read, for those who wish to further their potential as human beings.

This is the potential of the real Superman, the modern Prometheus human being. :)

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downl ... Rising.pdf

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljGMhDSSGFU[/youtube]

Yes, no stone, no note, unturned. ;)

And yes, ONE CAN read the book to understand why I linked the youtube video. It's a secret. :) Well, no, NOT really a secret, a banquet really, with invitations, that not all are chosen for ;) OR ACCEPT.