1. Analytic Versus Continental --C. G. Prado
20th Century Philosophy
Analytic Versus Continental
--C. G. Prado

2. History of the Divide
1) 70 or 80 years of divide between Analytical and Continental
1929: Gilbert Ryle dismisses Heidegger’s Being and Time: “Sein und Zeit” in Mind.
2) The gap widened with the rise of the “postmodernist” turn of Continental Philosophy (Jacques Derrida)
In last three decades
3) But recently attempts to narrow the gap
By focusing on important thinkers in each camp
Clarifying how they differ
And also how they complement one another

3. Analytical emphases
Early analytical philosophers: Frege, Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, logical positivists (Carnap …)
Positively described
Emphasize logic and language
Stress epistemology
And philosophy of science
 Require high level of technical expertize

4. Anti-metaphysics Negatively described
Reject metaphysical speculation of Continental thinkers: Bradley, Bosanquet, Bergson, Heidegger …
This anti-metaphysical approach resonates with
followers of John Dewey’s pragmatism in US
And British followers of G.E. Moore

5. The Heart of the Methodological differences: Analysis or Synthesis
Solve distinct philosophical problems
Reduce them to their parts
E.g., Searle: Consciousness consists in
Intentionality, Speech acts, Social institutions
“Synthesis”
Particular philosophical issues are parts of larger unities
To properly understand them they must fit in these larger wholes
E.g., Foucault: Philosophy from Hegel to Sartre is a “totalizing enterprise.”

6. Other differences Style Politics Relativism
Russell says that Nietzsche “was a literary rather than academic philosopher.”
Politics
Continental philosophers have experienced two world wars
“political baggage”
Relativism
Nietzschean nihilism

7. Dismissive attitude
Analytic philosophers who say about postmodernists: it’s not worth bothering about
For intellectual hygiene, don’t read Foucault (D. M. Armstrong)
Searle on attitude of analytic philosophers: “most of this stuff just passes them by. Why should I waste my time attacking it?”

8. Continental differences among themselves
What do Continental philosophers think about analytical ones?
Perhaps they are too busy dealing with each other
Which kind of Continental philosopher?
Existentialists,
hermeneutics,
phenomenologists,
structuralists,
post-structuralists,
postmoderns,
deconstructivists

9. Common opinion of Continental re Analytical
General position of all these trends:
Analytical philosophers have ceased to be a “socially engaged interdisciplinary enterprise,
becoming instead a highly specialized occupation” (Borradori)
Richard Rorty (American Continentalist)
replying to Searle’s idea that it’s a waste of time to consider Continental philosophy:
The only people who are interested in analytic philosophy are analytic philosophers

10. Analytic philosophy has become too arcane
They have isolated their thought
from history and culture
In professionalizing philosophy
they made their work too arcane for anyone but themselves
American philosophy used to be socially relevant
John Dewey published in popular journals on issues like education reform, political reform, capital punishment
But not Quine, Davidson, Putnam …

11. New developments Recently, regarding the other side
Perhaps not genuine interest
But growing curiosity
Cause of this development?
Excesses of postmodernism: There are no “facts”—these are subjective constructions for ends of power and profit
Two opponents both unite in opposing this extreme of Continental thought
Continental Habermas’ criticism of Foucault is as strong as analytical Charles Taylor
Against postmodernism, analytical philosophers are paying more attention to earlier trends in 20th century Continental thought
E.g., Husserl’s and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology

12. Divergent trends or incommensurable conceptions?
There is a difference between
two divergent trends in philosophy
and incommensurable conceptions of philosophy
Philosophy v. pseudo-philosophy
where each side denies that the other is really philosophy
Instead of arguments on each side, equally matched
there is entrenched opposition

13. Underlying relativism
The problem with this is the underlying relativism
The idea that there are incompatible conceptions of fundamental philosophical issues
And of philosophy itself
The “intellectually repugnant” alternative that neither side wants to accept:
Say the other side is just wrong
and somehow unable to see that they are wrong

14. Toleration? Or humor? Toleration is not good enough
saying that they may be right from their own point of view
=Relativism
It’s worse to dismiss the other side as
confused,
perverse,
unwilling or incapable of understanding their confusions
And so each side instead jokes about the other side

15. A porous border The time has come to examine more carefully
The similarities
And differences
Re key philosophical issues
Then we may see
that they are not as different as one had thought
that the border between them is porous