Analytic-Continental Divide

[Playfishpaste]

A quote from Brian Leiter:


These remarks remain as apt today as they were more than a century ago. Whatever the limitations of "analytic" philosophy, it is clearly far preferable to what has befallen humanistic fields like English, which have largely collapsed as serious disciplines while becoming the repository for all the world's bad philosophy, bad social science, and bad history. (Surely humanity "celebrities" like Stanley Fish and Judith Butler are fine contemporary examples of "the man of letters who really is nothing but 'represents' almost everything, playing and 'substituting' for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated.…") When compared to the sophomoric nonsense that passes for "philosophizing" in the broader academic culture—often in fields like English, Law, Political Science, and sometimes History—one can only have the highest respect for the intellectual rigor and specialization of analytic philosophers. It is also because analytic philosophy remains very much a specialty that it is possible to rank departments: the standards of success and accomplishment are relatively clear, maintained as they are by a large, dedicated scholarly community.


So what do you guys think, is analytic really the crown jewel of the humanities given that fields like English and Political Theory consist of a bunch of noobs pontificating without justification?

[Odovacar]

Ridiculous idea, simply. There are good analytical philosophers and there are bad ones. The method itself isn't really good it presupposes that reality is a complexity which has simple elements in the core.

Literary theoreticians can be real cheaters though, most of them collects half-read Derrida, Heidegger, Kant quotes and mix them with badly digested sociology, psychology (especially Lacan!!)
English literature scholars in my country adore gender-theory too, the crownjewel of pseudo-science...so, that part may be true.

[Justice and Mercy]

"All the world's bad philosophy" exists in such forms because analytic philosophy is so barren a field. When there are no absolutes, anything goes. Everyone, including the analytics, sees through the facade.

[VALIS]

Meh, I'm a fan of both, depending on my mood. Continental is obviously far more broad and quite fanciful at times, it is quite literary. Analytic can be very very stuffy and is imo definitely more challenging and harder going, especially when looking at Russel, GE Moore and Wittgenstein onwards. But then again I don't have the most mathematical/logically inclined mind which impedes my understanding or appreciation for analytical philosophy.

It is quite odd how this divide occurred and that a specific way of philosophizing is associated with geographical locations, analytical being USA/UK and continental being mainland Europe. I'm sure if we were retrospectively looking back in time many mainland European philosophers would fall under the analytic umbrella such as Kant, Leibniz, Descartes and maybe even Aristotle. (although Aristotle could fall under both)

[Justice and Mercy]

Meh, I'm a fan of both, depending on my mood. Continental is obviously far more broad and quite fanciful at times, it is quite literary. Analytic can be very very stuffy and is imo definitely more challenging and harder going, especially when looking at Russel, GE Moore and Wittgenstein onwards. But then again I don't have the most mathematical/logically inclined mind which impedes my understanding or appreciation for analytical philosophy.

It is quite odd how this divide occurred and that a specific way of philosophizing is associated with geographical locations, analytical being USA/UK and continental being mainland Europe. I'm sure if we were retrospectively looking back in time many mainland European philosophers would fall under the analytic umbrella such as Kant, Leibniz, Descartes and maybe even Aristotle. (although Aristotle could fall under both)

Uh, no.

Even Kant (the intellectual master of the analytics, whether they know it or not) has a kind of nobility over the analytics in one particular respect: He was willing to speak in terms of broad fundamentals. Granted, he did so for the purpose of tearing them apart, and achieved it.

But Aristotle? Aristotle was truly an intellectual, not a boring know-nothing say-nothing classroom parasite.

[VALIS]

Uh, no.

Even Kant (the intellectual master of the analytics, whether they know it or not) has a kind of nobility over the analytics in one particular respect: He was willing to speak in terms of broad fundamentals. Granted, he did so for the purpose of tearing them apart, and achieved it.

But Aristotle? Aristotle was truly an intellectual, not a boring know-nothing say-nothing classroom parasite.

Eh? Analytic philosophy is a bit dull I'll give you that but it's not without merit. Sometimes we need preciseness and things to be honed in on and scrutinized to death.
Sometimes I do wonder whether the scientific method can solve philosophical questions like how the analytics profess.
But the underlying foundation of aligning philosophy with logic and to a lesser extent maths was a giant leap forward for philosophy in the early 20th century.

It can get bogged down by irrelevant obsession with the finer points and therefore become boring and I'd much rather read Nietzche or Satre, but like I said, it has it's merits. If not for producing Russell and Wittgenstein alone!

[Justice and Mercy]

Eh? Analytic philosophy is a bit dull I'll give you that but it's not without merit.

It is totally without merit.

Sometimes we need preciseness and things to be honed in on and scrutinized to death.

Except that's not what happens. You've heard the saying, "miss the forest for the trees."

Well, the analytics hollow out the trunks and hide inside the trees. They pretend to be studying complex aspects of philosophy without EVER addressing their foundations.

It's actually evasion on a grand scale. Evasion as a methodology, in fact.

Sometimes I do wonder whether the scientific method can solve philosophical questions like how the analytics profess.

And you ought to wonder precisely that. The scientific method is properly based on a certain kind of epistemology and a certain kind of metaphysics, but no one admits it. It leads to Feyerabend's kind of thought, and if you know precisely what that is and see it's meaning, you know just how disastrous it really is.

[VALIS]

Oh come on! I don't think analytic philosphy necessarily leads into epistemological anarchism. That's like saying Nietsches philosophy necessarily leads to the ideals of racial superiority and the ideals of the Nazi ubermencsh. You're being extreme.

And are you really denying that Russell or Frege's contribution to underlying philosophy with hard logic has no merit to it? Or Wittgensteins contribution to the philosophy of language? Or Chomsky's contribution(hell creation) of the field of linguistics? Nah come on.

[Justice and Mercy]

Oh come on! :laughing: I don't think analytic philosphy necessarily leads into epistemological anarchism.

It absolutely does, but some are more explicit than most.

Popper, for instance, is more explicit than Wittgenstein and Russell, and less explicit than Feyerabend. But they are, fundamentally, the same in terms of principle. That is: They have none.

That's like saying Nietsches philosophy necessarily leads to the ideals of racial superiority and the ideals of the Nazi ubermencsh. You're being extreme.

I'm not being extreme, I'm being Aristotelian. I'm recognizing the essential aspects and determining their meaning.

And are you really denying that Russell or Frege's contribution to underlying philosophy with hard logic has no merit to it?

Oh perphaps very little. But if you look, for instance, at "logical implication", you can see how empty it is.

Look, for further explanation, at "Reason is God" in the Ethos, Mores et Monstica forum, namely the last page or two in which Chriscase and I discuss logical implication.

Or Chomsky's contribution(hell creation) of the field of linguistics?

I think I'm gonna barf.

[VALIS]

Popper, for instance, is more explicit than Wittgenstein and Russell, and less explicit than Feyerabend. But they are, fundamentally, the same in terms of principle. That is: They have none.

Nope, don't accept it. Not at all.
If you're referring to logical positivism then OK, logical positivism is dead and no one in contemporary philosophy adheres to it. It's too stringent in that it self defeats itself.
But you're whole they have no prinicple? What do you even mean by that?

And what do you mean by how empty logical implication is? Are you referring to how abstract it all is and detatched from ordinary life?


I'm assuming your getting your opinions from an Ayn Rand tract so could you link me to what she's saying so I can better contextualise what you're getting at? Thanks.

[Justice and Mercy]

Nope, don't accept it. Not at all.
If you're referring to logical positivism then OK, logical positivism is dead and no one in contemporary philosophy adheres to it. It's too stringent in that it self defeats itself.

No, logical positivism was simply another face of the same overall philosophical program: The refusal to practice philosophy.

But you're whole they have no prinicple? What do you even mean by that?

That they never speak in terms of broad fundamentals. For instance, look at Chriscase's explanation of "logic" in the thread I pointed you to earlier. The question, "what does logic represent in reality" is totally evaded, especially by Wittgenstein. This question leads to a proper metaphysics. The process of concept-formation is also evaded, though Wittgenstein gives a lame argument, now known as the "family resemblance" argument.

Oh, because you asked, I'll give you Ayn Rand's statements on the subject.

Ayn Rand said of the argument: "Wittgenstein’s theory that a concept refers to a conglomeration of things vaguely tied together by a “family resemblance” is a perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus."

There is an element of grim irony in the emergence of Linguistic Analysis on the philosophical scene. The assault on man’s conceptual faculty has been accelerating since Kant, widening the breach between man’s mind and reality. The cognitive function of concepts was undercut by a series of grotesque devices—such, for instance, as the “analytic-synthetic” dichotomy which, by a route of tortuous circumlocutions and equivocations, leads to the dogma that a “necessarily” true proposition cannot be factual, and a factual proposition cannot be “necessarily” true. The crass skepticism and epistemological cynicism of Kant’s influence have been seeping from the universities to the arts, the sciences, the industries, the legislatures, saturating our culture, decomposing language and thought. If ever there was a need for a Herculean philosophical effort to clean up the Kantian stables—particularly, to redeem language by establishing objective criteria of meaning and definition, which average men could not attempt—the time wasnow. As if sensing that need, Linguistic Analysis came on the scene for the avowed purpose of “clarifying” language—and proceeded to declare that the meaning of concepts is determined in the minds of average men, and that the job of philosophers consists of observing and reporting on how people use words.

The reductio ad absurdum of a long line of mini-Kantians, such as pragmatists and positivists, Linguistic Analysis holds that words are an arbitrary social product immune from any principles or standards, an irreducible primary not subject to inquiry about its origin or purpose—and that we can “dissolve” all philosophical problems by“clarifying” the use of these arbitrary, causeless, meaningless sounds which hold ultimate power over reality. . . .

Proceeding from the premise that words (concepts) are created by whim, Linguistic Analysis offers us a choice of whims: individual or collective. It declares that there are two kinds of definitions: “stipulative,” which may be anything anyone chooses, and “reportive,” which are ascertained by polls of popular use.

As reporters, linguistic analysts were accurate: Wittgenstein’s theory that a concept refers to a conglomeration of things vaguely tied together by a “family resemblance” is a perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus.

And what do you mean by how empty logical implication is? Are you referring to how abstract it all is and detatched from ordinary life?

No no, logical implication certainly exists and is vital to human cognition.

But not in the empty manner in which analytics present it. You know:

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Truly a great way to appear intelligent while actually not saying anything at all.

"This screen gives off light."
"Barack Obama is President of the US."

Both statements are true, does the first "imply" the second?

I'm assuming your getting your opinions from an Ayn Rand tract so could you link me to what she's saying so I can better contextualise what you're getting at? Thanks.

I'm sorry to say that she never did mention Popper or Feyerabend as far as I know. In fact, she only mentions Russell and Wittgenstein in passing.

[VALIS]

Also quite surprised you aren't a fan of Karl Popper. Have you read Open Society and it's Enemy's? Ol Popper was on your side of the fence when it came to liberty and attacks on totalitarianism.

[VALIS]

I still don't really get your or Ayn Rand's beef with analytic philosophy. It's dull,ok, it's boring ok. But that it leads to crass cynicism or skepticism? I don't buy that at all. And it all started with Kants analytic-synthetic distinction uhhhh? Whaaaa? What's wrong with Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction? She doesn't actually say, just babbles on about how evil it is without saying specifically why she thinks it's wrong. This woman by the way....

And why do you keep bringing up this chriscase fellow? Who is he? Just another forum poster...he evading answering what logic is....okay? That's him. Logic is just a codified way of correct reasoning following strict principles for truth (proof).

[Justice and Mercy]

I still don't really get your or Ayn Rand's beef with analytic philosophy. It's dull,ok, it's boring ok. But that it leads to crass cynicism or skepticism?

Yep, and let's address that at the same time as something else later in your post.

And it all started with Kants analytic-synthetic distinction uhhhh? Whaaaa? What's wrong with Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction?

Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction makes broad fundamental knowledge impossible. All that can be absolutely proven in this view is "a priori" knowledge, which is seperated by an impenetrable wall from empirical knowledge.

Under the analytics view, "a priori" knowledge is a social convention. "A posteriori" knowledge cannot be proven.

Thus, nothing about reality can be proven.

Popper is explicit about this, Feyerabend moreso.

She doesn't actually say, just babbles on about how evil it is without saying specifically why she thinks it's wrong. This woman by the way....

Before shooting off such an accusation, you would need to look at her statement in context. She says it's wrong and shows the absurdity of it, but her own answer is elsewhere. I don't think she ever attacks "analytic philosophy" as such, but rather it's specific positions and arguments. She does attack positivism (both Logical Positivism and the more broad stance of positivism), Linguistic Analysis, behaviorism, pragmatism, nominalism, and conceptualism.

And why do you keep bringing up this chriscase fellow? Who is he? Just another forum poster...he evading answering what logic is....okay? That's him. Logic is just a codified way of correct reasoning following strict principles for truth (proof).

Chriscase is an excellent example of a student of the analytics. I don't know that he's ever explicitly studied analytic philosophy, but his view is their view.

But let's examine your explanation. Where do those strict principles come from, and how can one differentiate between correct and incorrect reasoning?

[VALIS]

Huh.....so I guess Ayn Rands critique of Analytic philosophy doesn't go beyond her simply saying "I don't like it wah!"
I wonder why she isn't taught in philosophy classes or taken seriously by academia?

[Odovacar]

Kant in my opinion was very far from analytical philosophy. Besides it seems Rand has at least one good points hehe...

[VALIS]

I'm not getting into Kant's synthetic-analytic distinction That was an aside. Let's not dovert the thread too much. Rand is predictibaly wrong on the matter.

[Justice and Mercy]

I'm not getting into Kant's synthetic-analytic distinction That was an aside. Let's not dovert the thread too much. Rand is predictibaly wrong on the matter.

Uh, okay, how so?

[VALIS]

Anyway we have diverted this thread far too much off track by entertaining the whimsical and unsubstantive errors of the immense cretin Ayn Rand. No more.

[Justice and Mercy]

Anyway we have diverted this thread far too much off track by entertaining the whimsical and unsubstantive errors of the immense cretin Ayn Rand. No more.

Seriously?

I was sharing my opinions on analytic philosophy, which is obviously on-topic. You than asked for Ayn Rand's writings on the matter, and I complied. Now, after I've asked you to substantiate your statements, you want to act as if you and I never even spoke here.

We are on track. We're talking about a specific critique of analytic philosophy.