Talk:Continental philosophy

message: "Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler and, perhaps principally, Jacques Lacan are usually associated with this field."
first, principally is most likely a weasel word in this context.  Secondly, I have a hard time imagining how Lacan could be preeminent over Freud in any context. He [Lacan] certainly did not think so.  A continental philosopher who engages with Lacan is a Lacanian or specifically interested in his work; it is almost unheard of for a continental philosopher to fail to engage with Freud.  The Frankfurt School, for example, puts a huge emphasis on Freud, but ignored Lacan entirely even at the apex of his career. 66.222.62.214 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpick 

message: I would like to know what was NPOV about the stuff I put up that you removed. i also object to your retitling of hte 'English-speaking world' section as 'in the university', as it does not apply to 'the university' at all, but only to universities in certain countries.--XmarkX 07:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry these changes bothered you... and if you object to something in the article, please change it!  Not much has been removed from the article -- apart from moving sentences around and some rewording, I deleted one sentence: From this point to the present, the torch of philosophy in continental Europe has been passed, for the first time since the eighteenth century Enlightenment, to France.  This praise seemed unsubstantiated and a little idiosyncratic to me; if somebody disagreed with the article, how would we demonstrate which country was now "carrying the torch"?  (This was the non-NPOV I meant to refer to in the change log, and User:Sethmahoney in this edit was probably referring to the word "dogma," which seems like anti-Heidegger POV to me.)  On the section title, just change it back if you want.  I thought those sections seemed really to be about the academic status of continental philosophy, and they do mention its place in France and Germany as well. -- Rbellin 14:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jun 2004 Edits 

message: "revert last edit, since the phrase "Anglo-American" is key to explaining what "Continental" is defined against." What is that supposed to mean?
: (This was posted as a reply to my last edit reinserting the text "Anglo-American" before "analytic philosophy," and the anonymous user who posted it appears to be the same editor as User:Kikl.) Remember, Wikipedia articles are written for newcomers and outsiders to the fields they cover.  To someone who doesn't understand the distinction, it makes sense to explain that analytic philosophy is notionally Anglo-American as a contrast to "Continental," because otherwise the distinction seems like an apples-and-oranges comparison.  This is the case even if, as you seem to believe and I mostly agree, the distinction is largely false when the matter is considered in more depth.  
: Please, also, remember the principle (WP:NOR) that Wikipedia reports on existing ideas rather than polemicizing for or against them; the opinion above that "the distinction...does not make any sense at all" is a valid opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place to argue for or against it.  The point of this article is to explain to a lay reader what the purported distinction is, not argue that it does or that it does not have descriptive validity.  It's enough to note that informed opinions vary on this question, and perhaps to cite notable statements of the various takes on the question. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (deleted) - apologies, not seing any responces in talk, I failed to notice how article has supstantialy progressed since these problems were first pointed out...--Aryah 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Dummett reference is useless (and the Prado suspect), but saying that Dummett holds the opposite view is confusing the issue.  The claim you quote from the article is saying "AP became dominant in the UK & US".  Dummett does not and would not deny this.  What Dummett is objecting to in his book is the claim that "AP = Anglo-American".  Dummett argues that the origins of AP lie in Frege, Bolzano, and other German-Austrian philosophers.  The claim in this article is poorly sourced (and originates in the early, low-quality origins of this article), but Dummett does not deny it, and it would be, I think, fairly easy to find appropriate sources.  (Charlton, p. 2, or Glock, p. 64, or the Searle/Leiter quotes at the start of the Wiki article on Analytic Philosophy. 271828182 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anglo-American"

message: What does it mean that something appears to be different "from an analytic point of view"? Doesn't a difference imply an analysis? Paired with the following bit about how analytic philosophy "notoriously defines descriptive value on its own terms" this smells like POV. If something appears a certain way to the layman, even if that happens to align with a particular philosophical POV, it shouldn't require qualification... this kind of language looks like a tetchy, insecure rebuttal. It's like saying "2 + 2 = 4 (in the slanted, insular world of mathematics, famous for defining numbers on its own terms)." Or am I missing something? Pjrich 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same note, the "Emphasis on Thinkers" subsection seems a bit OR. Until someone can cite it, I'm putting a  tag on it. --LordTimothyDexter 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences from analytic philosophy 

message: Can anyone contribute here? — goethean ॐ 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help at Lit Crit 

message: I was redirected here from "speculative philosophy," but I couldn't find the term speculative philosophy used anywhere in the article. I've got no idea how the two are related (and still don't know anything more about speculative philosophy, obviously, which is what I was looking for). Drlith 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is of course disagreement, but generally used to refer to non-empirically based views Diomedes Agonistes (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

text: That's weird. I typed in speculative philosophy in the search box and landed on Sublation, the whole of which strikes me as original research.  Speculative philosophy isn't all about Hegel. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_philosophy
Zeusnoos 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the speculative philosophy redirection should be removed and replaced with a stub page linking to both natural philisophy and continental philosophy.
Md84419 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from "Speculative philosophy" 

message: What is problematic about talking this way is that prior 1900 much of Western philosophy was from the "mainland" and what was from Britain and Ireland was also an important influence (eg, Locke, Hume, Berkeley) on the mainland and vice-versa, now you exclude Berkeley and Hume from being a part of the "certain philosophers".  So I suppose what I'm trying to say (not very well) is that the geographic definition that is given is perhaps not the first way to characterise it.  Just as a geographic definition of Analytic would not be either.  Analytic too is no easier to define as method (it is usually given as having a well-defined method, clarity, etc. but there is now lots of jargon and very complex stuff in Analytic and the claim of clarity is perhaps just self-promotional).
In other words would you say this in defining analytic philosophy:
::Analytic philosophy is a term that originated among, A.N. Others, and describes various philosophies strongly influenced by certain philosophers, and is practiced mainly in England and the U.S..  It is typically distinguished from Continental philosophy. The philosophies comprising analytic philosophy usually include...ordinary language, descriptivism, logical positivism, philosophy of science, semantic realism, ontological relativity, transcendentalism (or "connective analysis"), phil of mind,  etc...
-- Lucas (Talk) 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might say that, sure.  An extensional definition is better than none at all.  And whereas analytic philosophy has a vague intension (clarity, logic, language, etc.), I leave it as an exercise for the editor to find a citable common thread among, say, Deleuze, Habermas, Hegel, Irigaray, Vattimo, Benjamin, Klages, Kierkegaard, and Serres.  271828182 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The choice is not between, no definition all, or a vague one.  The choice is between giving it as a tradition or as a vague definition. But the vague definition is misleading, common threads in analytic are more often broken than held: language, Rawls! clarity, Wittgenstein II (& I for that matter)!, logic, Quine!  Neither do many of them actually agree on or give accepted definitions of what clarity, language or logic are.  A thread between "Deleuze, Habermas, Hegel, Irigaray, Vattimo, Benjamin, Klages, Kierkegaard, and Serres"?  Nor would I try reducing them to logic, clarity, language or any single terms.  -- Lucas (Talk) 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are only reinforcing my larger point that the analytic/continental distinction is an exceedingly vague and dubious one to begin with.  But then, you are the one who maintains that this split (or "schism") is so deep and profound Wikipedia needs your original research to highlight it. 271828182 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I admit there is a problem here, but I do not think it is because there is no schism.  I think it means that the schism is deeper and more profound than we suggested above. And so it is more difficult to characterise other than as a schism in which both sides have isolated themselves from one another and do not even critique one another, but neither side gives itself, or can be given, an easy definition.  And, by the way, there are two citations to the fact that this division has grown rather than receded in recent decades.  -- Lucas (Talk) 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's vague and doubtful; therefore it is deeper and more profound?  Sorry, can't follow your reasoning there.  And if the schism is as deep as you allege, how do gifted souls such as you manage to cast your gaze over the rift so accurately?  I would recommend Davidson's "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" here, but since he's well-known to be entrenched in the analytic tradition, I imagine you would dismiss that primary source too.  In any event, this discussion has wandered away from the article, yet again.  271828182 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My reasoning there is not just conjecture, it is based as I mentinoed on two major citations that indicate the schism has widened rather than receded in the last few decades.  I think the more profound something is the harder it can be to see (agreed for you it could be called vague) other wise it'd be apparent and not profound.  Gifted souls like me do not really cast a gaze over it but use references and scholarly work to talk about it.  I would not dismiss Davidson in general but would prefer you read his, "Belief and the Basis of meaning". But in writings about the schism, I'd be very naive if I didn't see to biases.  -- Lucas (Talk) 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Certain Philosophers from the Mainland

message: Here I quote twice from the Oxford Companion:
::Modern French philosophy is usually thought to be a part of ‘modern continental philosophy’, which is contrasted with Anglo-American ‘analytical’ (or ‘ analytic’) philosophy.
and,
::The philosophical disagreements between, say, Logical Positivism and the later Wittgenstein, or the methodological divergences between, say, Frege and Ryle, make it hard to give ‘analytical philosophy’ clear sense or reference
This points to the difficulty of grouping for bother Analytic and Continental.  It has been my impression that others here only consider it a problem of accidental naming given by Anglophones to a too loose grouping called Continental.  It shows the same problem is also present for Anglophone philosophy.  The obvious answer is that though philosophers and their methods disagreed with one another within a tradtion, in disagreeing they read only those of the same tradition. Both Analytic and Continental are used as names, and we should not get lost in their etymologies. ---- Lucas (Talk) 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the attempt to define Analytic as method and Continental as incomparably geographic

message: 1.  Analytic philosophy is not primarily defined by geography, culture or language, but by a certain way of doing philosophy that has certain characteristics.  These characteristics are (a) The importance of logical form.  Once we attempt to reduce 'philosophical propositions' to their logical form, we either find that it is impossible, because the proposition is meaningless, or it is possible, but the proposition turns out to be harmless or trivial or uninteresting.  Russell's theory of descriptions is held to be a paradigm of this activitiy.  (b)  The importance of predicate logic.  This is a stronger version of (a), according to which modern predicate calculus provides the correct basis for reducing to logical form.  Not all analytics agree with this, but it is nonetheless a pronounced characateristic of much AAA.  (c) A suspicion or mistrust of metaphysical terminology.  The correct logical form of language is ordinary language itself: once we excise the suspicious metaphysical terms (ontological, existentiel, being-in-itself, thrownness, 'nothing' used as a participle of the verb 'to noth' &c), we find that metaphysical propositions dissolve into incoherence (d) A strongly positivist tendency (of which an extreme form is logical positivism), according to which there are no specifically philosophical truths.  All 'philosophical propositions' can be shown to be either trivially true, or meaningless, according to the preferred methods (a) to (c) above.
2.  While analytic philosophy is not defined according to geography, there is some evidence that its practice is more widespread in English-speaking countries.  Notwithstanding, it is practised on 'the Continent', and many of the key figures involved in the early period of analytic philosophy were from 'the Continent'.
3.  Turning now to 'Continental philosophy', I am reliably informed that this is not a term that so-called 'Continental philosophers' use of their own philosophy.  That seems inherently plausible because (a) the word 'the continent' is English, and does not as far belong to any European language in the sense that 'Le Weekend' does (b) it has a faintly pejorative tone, and is certainly not PC – the PC term is 'mainland Europe'.  
4.  Thus it seems 'Continental philosophy' is simply a word used by analytic philosophers to describe forms of philosophy that are not analytic, and which (in their view) were typically practised in mainland Europe.
5.  If (4) is true, that suggests the introduction of the article needs to be changed to reflect that fact, and also the sources cited should be different.  Instead of showing how 'continental philosophers' characterise their subject, and citing appropriate sources, it should reflect the (possibly prejudiced) opinions that analytic philosophers have as to what this philosophy is, citing appropriate sources.  
6.  Could even imagine two articles: this one, which describes a certain stereotype of non-analytic philosophy as seen by analytic philosophers (from the neutral viewpoint, i.e. making clear that this is just a viewpoint).  Another article (European philosophy, perhaps) which treats it objectively.  (I'm very much against that, for the same reason I'm against having an article on 'Eastern philosophy', as it illustrates the tendency of people from one culture to marginalise any philosophy or system or view by characterising it is 'not ours'.  Anything that is 'not ours' should be handled in the depth and detail it deserves.  Thus all the separate 'continental' traditions should be handled in separate articles (Existentialism, Phenomenology, Structuralism, Deconstructionism &c).
7.  I like the point that analytic philosophers have done work on 'continental' ones, but "Name a book by a "continental" on Frege, Russell, Quine, or Kripke. Name even one.".  Is it true – it seems plausible, but universal statements (no X is Y) are much harder to prove than existential ones (some X is Y).
:Universal statements are hard to prove, but very easy to falsify--which is actually reflected in the structure of that comment.
8.  I find the discussion above very hard to follow.  What are the main issues?  Lucas claims that there was a schism or division, and the person who is to be identified only by a number disagrees.  I tend to agree with the numbered one.  Schism implies some conscious disagreement between two sides, that both sides agreed on what the disagreement was about (some proposition or set of propositions that are in dispute, e.g.).  Since there appears to be very little of a debate between the two sides, in what sense is there a schism?  
9.  What issue of importance hangs upon Ryle's review?  
10.  I read  the Blackburn piece with interest.  It reinforces all my prejudices (as an analytic) against 'Continental philosophy.  E.g. "Ryle noted an alarming tendency toward unintelligibility" – see my point 1c above.  "English is more resistant to the encrustations of philosophical German", is an elegant way of expressing an idea that Hobbes had to Latin (he thought that metaphysics was an essentially Latin subject, and that if you translated Latin philosophy into plain English, it would turn into nonsense – see the opening chapters of Leviathan).  Blackburn also quotes disparingly "Time-space is the enowned encleavage of the turning trajectories of enowning, of the turning between belongingness and the call, between abandonment by being and enbeckoning (the enquivering of the resonance of be-ing itself!)."  
Dbuckner 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote is from Heidegger's *private* notes Beitraege, published as "Contributions" - I recognize it from the odd English translation (which is hilarious in places).  H specifically instructed that this work not be published in German until 1989.  He did not intend this writing for anyone but people of the future familiar with all of his works, his whole project and unique vocabulary. In other words, this is H writing not as a public philosopher, but to his own sort of "Uebermensch".  Was that mentioned by Blackburn?  Zeusnoos 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental philosophy 

message: The concept of a 'primary source' comes from  history, and means a source that is very close to a historical event (such as an eyewitness, minutes of an important meeting &c).  WP:OR suggests not using primary sources because they usually require synthesis and interpretation in order to make sense, and of course if that is allowed, then we implicitly open the door to any personal and idiosyncratic, original set of synthetic explanations, i.e. original research.
There is of course no exact analogue of a 'historical event' when we are discussing the works of the great philosophers.  But the spirit of WP:OR is clear.  Avoid anything that requires interpretation (what exactly does 'getting the fly out of the fly-bottle', mean), or synthesis (taking a wide variety of quotes from the same philosopher, or from different philosophers of the same school, and making a judgment about what all those quotations mean).  
On that interpretation, the original writing of a great philosopher is a primary source, i.e. a source very close to the historical event of the philosopher thinking great thoughts.  So we avoid this wherever possible.  We don't try and understand Wittgenstein's cryptic remark about flies and fly-bottles.  We go straight to a authoritative secondary source like Kenny, and see what Kenny says, and cite it.  I don't know much about Heidegger, but I know he is famously more cryptic and difficult than Wittgenstein, so we rely on authoritative (and intelligible, in my view) secondary sources.
I am quite happy to take this to the Philosophy project where they have set up guidelines on this.  But surely this belongs in the department of the bleeding obvious.  The only reason there seems to be any argument over this is one user, who shall remain nameless, who persists in pushing personal and idiosyncratic, synthetic explanations of the history of philosophy all over the shop.  Please try to be more careful about sticking only to published syntheses and explanations rather than constructing your own arguments based on "original philosophers' works" (which are certainly primary, not secondary, sources for articles on philosophy). Dbuckner 08:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and Secondary sources 

message: I gather thatt many theologians have been influenced by Continental philosophy, such as Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx  and Karl Rahner, and this might eventually be noted if the article becomes more clear and more detailed. ADM (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Theologians

message: Philosophy - the study of life and human's reaction to it; an outlook and way of life. Nihilism - the philosophy of denying life. Thesis - Schopenhauer (reaction to Hegel), Kierkegaard (as nihilist)
Existentialism - the philosophy of accepting life. Antithesis - Kierkegaard (as theistic/atheistic existentialist), Nietzche, Sartre, et.al.
Absurdism - the philosophy recognizing the absurdity of life Synthesis - Kiekegaard (as absurdist),Camus
What is more important than these?
:One of the basic policies of Wikipedia is that claims in articles must be verifiable, that is, based on reliable published sources, preferably by experts in that field.  The lede definition of continental philosophy is based on such reliable sources, and any additions need to be likewise.  271828182 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Why are you reverting'''? 

message: I know of not a single philosopher who went to Moscow in 1933ff.  Do you have any names?--Radh (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight to Moscow

message: This is already mentioned earlier in this talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Continental_philosophy#Redirect_from_.22Speculative_philosophy.22
Why does speculative philosophy re-direct here? It is true that the Continental schools tend to be more speculative than the analytic schools. But that's like saying that atheism should re-direct to Communism because Communism is more atheistic than capitalism. What about ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, the rationalists, Alfred North Whitehead? They are all speculative schools. What I would suggest is that somebody makes a new article for speculative philosophy (perhaps just a stub clarifying what it is), or that it somehow gets re-directed to the wikitionary entry en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speculative_philosophy. I suppose it would be acceptable to make a disambiguation page for speculative philosophy, but then you would surely need to put links on it to every single philosopher who could be called speculative. And I certainly see no way in which you could simply re-direct speculative philosophy to a single Wikipedia article, unless you were to re-direct it to the 'Philosophy' article itself. It would be more sensible to make a new article or re-direct to the wikitionary entry. Matthew Fennell (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does 'Speculative philosophy' re-direct here? 

message: The article doesn't talk about this explicitly, but "Continental philosophy" as a term seems to be used in two related senses: as a collection of genealogically-related philosophical movements (idealism, existentialism, structuralism, etc) that flourished on the European Continent, and as a style or mode of philosophical pedagogy practiced in some British and American philosophy departments, as contrasted with the majority methods. It's now possible to study figures in the continental tradition at "analytical" departments, but they differ in the way such study is carried out (particularly at the undergraduate level). For example, analytic philosophy courses and clusters tend to be topic-oriented, rather than author- or movement-focused, although that is obviously an illustrative simplification.  
I propose a substantial re-write of this article taking the broader perspective, although finding stuff online that can be linked through wikipedia will be a chore, so if you've got anything good, post it here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.91.53 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly right. On these grounds, I would say that this page is in clear violation of POV standards. It only presents the viewpoint of Continental philosophy common to members of the SPEP, the society mentioned in the article itself. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to correct the problem, but I believe it should be marked POV. For an alternative perspective, one could start with Brian Leiter's influential statement, the many posts from his blog (e.g.), and then the various responses to Leiter. So, if there are no objections, I will add the relevant template? — The Hanged Man (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the article, exactly, is the "clear violation of POV standards"?  The opening sections of the article present a very Leiterian approach, including an extensive definition drawn largely from Michael Rosen (who, among other things, co-edited with Leiter the Oxford Handbook on this subject).  If anything, the above comments are more POV (in the sense of SPEP-scaremongering) than anything in the article! 271828182 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has substantiated the charges of NPOV violation, the concerns raised in this discussion have been addressed, and the tag seems to be inviting drive-by know-nothing editing, I am removing the NPOV tag. 271828182 (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective of the article 

message: The emphasis on contingent practice is not part of certain other philosophies which are still considered continental: such as the late Heidegger. I understand there is a source but it must be noted that several philosophers do not share such a vision; the source (which is in fact analytical) ignores several disciplines. Unless you don't count the late Heidegger as analytical, there is an huge hiatus here: he never spoke of any theory of practice.
Neither did Bergson as far as i recall. Posting this here hoping for a future edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.48.181 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on contingency?  

message: Does Society of the Spectacle really belong in the list of works if there is no reference to Debord or situationists in the body?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.151.50 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society of the Spectacle? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continental philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821213605/http://www.unt.edu/csph/Vol_01_winter00/torres-gregory_art.htm to http://www.unt.edu/csph/Vol_01_winter00/torres-gregory_art.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could contingency be the source of the name? 
As opposed to analyzing the world rationally and coming to the conclusion about how the world MUST be, perhaps the philosophers who would empirically check what ACTUALLY IS and come up with a simplified way of knowing (and thus "explaining") what the world WILL PROBABLY BE, and how the world PROBABLY BECAME WHAT IT IS? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  contingental? 

message: I would like to suggest that some works by Kant be added to the "Significant Works" section, since Kant is a major player in the continental tradition.  Suggested works:  Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason. Night-Mare198 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Works 

message: "The themes proposed by Michael E. Rosen derive from a broadly Kantian thesis that knowledge, experience, and reality are bound and shaped by conditions best understood through philosophical reflection rather than exclusively empirical inquiry"
Since these philosophical reflections are based on experiences (empirical) which even are needed in Kants idealism and other forms of "continental philosophers" and empirical inquiry also requieres some form of reflective conclusion making as in data analysis of inferential statistics I have reason to believe that this whole debate and the whole attempt to differentiate between both kind of philosophies is a big pile of nothing. Can you imagine an exclusively empirical inquiry with no reflection (Constructing a test, setting definitions and logical rules to abide by, examining the probability of the data we perceive under the null, interpreting again)? 
If there was a difference Rosens proposition would weaken the credibility. 
Now that I read more than this statement in the opening and the more detailed outlaying of the common themes I start to wonder how one could even seriously consider themselves an analytical philosopher. Apart from the name there is not much analysis going on if one doesn't consider the Zeitgeist and cultural context and more importantly introspectively own psychological aspects of ones attempt to figuring out the world. Empirical inquiry without metaphysics is pointless, there would literally be no reason to do so because a reason requires some preposition of a goal that is unavailable to empirical inquiry. We will always end up with the reflection of what we empirically perceive. Look at Wisschenschaftstheorie (sorry don't have the english translation right now). Karl Popper would be considered an analytical philosopher right? His demand for falsificationability is very much status quo in statistics and at the same time a philosophical reflection of the conditions under which we examine empirical data. He came to these conclusions by reflecting and not by observing data. Furthermore there are plenty of sciences who rightfully deem examining the timely circumstances and the history of their studys very important. Especially social sciences!
Last Edit: I read some Whitehead and I think I got too emotional. In the end continental and analytical philosophers might come together in dialectic fashion to realize they never have been separated.
185.111.69.134 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not understandable common themes