Can anyone explain the difference between continental and analytic philosophy. I don't get it

Can anyone explain the difference between continental and analytic philosophy. I don't get it.

Other urls found in this thread:

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/bridging-the-analytic-continental-divide/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

One is based in phenomenology one is based in logic.

Continental philosophy
>Kant: We cannot account for our experience of things by reference either to the things themselves, or by assuming that "mind" is some kind of magic substance that simply "knows" things with certainty. Instead, we can study the conditions of our experience of things, and the necessary conditions of that experience, such as certain structuring laws, categories of thought, and the fact that there must be a unified subject to know, qua knowing, what (and that) it is knowing.

>Hegel: I agree, but now you've gotten us trapped being finite, atomistic subjects, and your account of ethical life is all screwy as a result. The understanding and self-understanding of subjects, at any given time, is collective, historical, and rationally developmental and progressive.

>Nietzsche & Kierkegaard: We agree with the collective constitution bit, but also with Kant, in that we're finite as fuck. It's more about the attitude you take toward experience and its possibilities, than some final rational grounding, which is itself questionable and merely contingent.

>Neo-Kantians: What if humans are made of a special sauce that isn't reducible to physical laws?

>Husserl: I agree with Kant. Let's do the Kant thing again, but much better.

>Heidegger: No, I agree with Nietzsche and kinda with Kierkegaard. Artistic living, in a self-aware mode about how you're made of special sauce, is the answer. Not self-conscious, philosophical, progressive rationality.

>Foucault: Yeah, I agree with Nietzsche too.

>Derrida: Yeah I think Nietzsche had it.

>Deleuze: I agree, Nietzsche mostly got it right.

>Marxists: Hegel had it sort of right, except fuck capitalism. Wait, no, Nietzsche had it right, and fuck capitalism!

>William James: What if the sauce we're made of us SO special that you can't reduce us to mechanical laws at all? What if everything about consciousness is important? Even mystically, maybe? I don't like the idea of forcing complex things to fit reductive, mechanical explanations.

>Bergson: Sounds good. You can hang out with us.

>Ricoeur: Seems like we're all at least agreed that a subject can be trapped in a world it never made, and that one's desires, paradoxically, can be desires one would not have chosen for oneself.

>Structuralists: That's pretty much how it works.

>Lacan: Yeah, something like that. You now owe me five-hundred francs. And I need someone to drive me home.

Analytic philosophy
>Mill (and Comte): What if humans AREN'T made of special sauce, but are actually lots of little mechanisms, and we can understand them as easily as any other physical mechanism?

>Different Neo-Kantians: What if we regularized the process of transcendental judgment?

>Frege: What if we regularized the process of making judgments? Wait, what does "transcendental" mean?

>Russell: Who cares what it means? This Hegel guy fucking sucks. Let's never talk about "transcendental" shit ever again. I like math better. It just werks!

>Vienna Circle: What if math just werked SO GOOD, that we never had to read confusing shit like Hegel ever again?

>Logical positivists and scientific empiricists and critical realists: Sounds good.

>Non-James pragmatists: I agree, sounds good.

>Collingwood: Oh god, oh god, I missed the last boat to the continent! Someone get me out of here, please! I can't take this shit!

>Wittgenstein: You think you have it bad? They keep dragging me to colloquia.

>Social scientists: Look, you can use covering-law models to explain these machines they used to call "people."

>Liberal ethicists: That seems okay to me. Just make sure to feed your "people" lots of slop, or it's unethical.

>Psychologists and cognitive scientists: Can we reprogram their brains to make them love cheaper slop? It will save money.

>Liberal ethicists: I don't see why not.

>Post-positivist philosophers of science: Wait, wait. Covering-law models, and scientific apparatuses in general, presuppose certain epistemological commitments. What if, like, what we don't know is actually true, but we can't know it, because we don't know it? What if to know something we don't know, we need to be open to the fact that our own criteria for judgment are--

>Logical positivists and scientific empiricists: BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!

>Quine: Uh, actually, they might be right.

>Sellars: Yeah, fuck, they might be right. Maybe we should read some continental philosophy?

>Kripke, Davidson, et al.: No, I don't care. Let's keep it in-house. I happen to like my sterile abstractions.

>Rorty: Guys, I snuck into the continentals' place, and we really fucked up. Nietzsche was right about pretty much everything.

>Analytic philosophy graduate students in 2017: Uh, excuse me, but "analytic" and "continental" are actually very simplistic terms! There is no such thing as an analytic or a continental. I'll have you know that my friend is doing very interesting pre-critical analytic metaphysics using Boolean trolley problems.

...

No help whatsover.

thanks for the effort, why do so many universities teach analytic philosophy when it's so shit?

Wow. Why are analytic philosophers such awful human beings?

To be honest, the difference is pretty vague.

I think that's a nice essay about it: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/bridging-the-analytic-continental-divide/

>continental
>being capable of formulating an argument to save their life

flawless victory

Edit: Imo, it's more a kind of a "identity" thing nowadays, something like "I belong to this group, therefore, the other group is stupid".
Personally, I think, there are interesting and fruitful thinkers in both traditions as well as you can find some idiots in both traditions.

Not him, but it's because they're right. The problem is that reductionism only gets you so far. Of course people are just complex chemical reactions, but then so is the sun and saying that the sun and people are the same thing just because they're "complex chemical reactions" is stupid.

And then Critical Theory had to go and ruin everything.

You're better off eliminating the distinction from your mind completely. It's a useless categorization.

Analytic is stuff like If A is a subset of all B then all A is blah blah blah

Continental is stuff like music is a direct manifestation of the will

They're both shit. Any true philosopher will transcend them both.

very nice

I can't actually not agree with this. Why would a truth seeker limit themselves to academic posturing?

>It's a useless categorization.

stop repeating memes.

You first by dropping these retarded terms. "Continental" means fucking nothing and all philosophy is analysis.

"analytic" is a method. "continental" is a region. they are not mutually exclusive. continental philosophers often employ analytic method.

logic is based in phenomenology.

'continental' is a meme made up by analytics. It is an general expression of disdain (resent) for their victories, despite everything, while the Empire can barely manage its colonies and is more concerned with getting sugar for their tea than funding any sort of cultural (even when iconoclastic) infrastructure.
Analytic philosophy is composed of Anglos and proxy-Anglos (burgers) that are so terribly upset by the fall of the Empire that they fell into a generations-long cycle of autism. It's a disease that we must take very seriously.

>Arguments are good
jej
>they're right
>philosophy
>truth-seeking
It's the current year mate, not 1720.
Nope.

yo bro though I've only been alive like 25 years mate. I gotta find the truth. The world is young.

Continental = rejects scientific method, mostly relies on opinion (but all opinion is equally valid and "true"), often rejects logic and its structure

Analytical = scientific, logical, the basis of computer science and mathematics, less concerned about long-winded books and more concerned about short rigorous papers that are basically like math

Continental philoshophy = idealism is perfectly valid and paramount to philosophy. The human is very much abstract.
Analytic = materialism matters most; idealism is ultimately irrelevant when studying humans.

No

Analytic Philosophy is not materialist by all means, stop talking about things you have no idea about, it's vile and deceives honest people that are looking for starting points in their studies.

Wrong

Double wrong. Who is the blondie supposed to be anyways?

So where should I start in my studies oh wise one?

>my friend is doing very interesting pre-critical analytic metaphysics using Boolean trolley problems.
jesus fucking christ.

Not who youre responding to, but you've fundamentally misunderstood the contrast between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy. Analytics have a long history of engaging with conceptual issues and challenging empiricist/materialists dogmatics. But this is not the ethical social philosophizing that continentals do. These are very particular problems having to do with abstract entities, time, mereology, modality, mind, knowledge, action, theory construction, and the interpretation of physical theories (to name just a few). Certainly many of them take positions wholly at odds with physicalism or reductionism, but this is still not the kind of problems continental philosophy tackles. The difference lies only in the problems being worked on and not the silly misconception that all analytics are "positivists"

Just start with Frege

Russel.

I think you were responding to an earlier poster there in part. Why would one start with Frege though?

Russel was a cuck though. That poster shouldn't take such advice.

Because he kickstarts the analytic tradition in earnest (although of course familiarity with Kant and other prior philosophers is useful). Spoiler alert, he's a playlist, which may not mean much to you in a vacuum, but should at least clue you in to the fact that analytic philosophy is not a hivemind, but a diverse tradition with all different ideas constantly in conversation with itself and also some continentals, especially Husserl, whose relationship to Frege is an important one owing to the overlap in their ideas

*platonist

Phoneposting is challenging

Thanks, I guess I find my thinking more suited towards Continental writing and study?

>>Kant: We cannot account for our experience of things by reference either to the things themselves, or by assuming that "mind" is some kind of magic substance that simply "knows" things with certainty. Instead, we can study the conditions of our experience of things, and the necessary conditions of that experience, such as certain structuring laws, categories of thought, and the fact that there must be a unified subject to know, qua knowing, what (and that) it is knowing.

This is very nicely done. Philosophy took a wrong turn with Kant.