IdleRich
IdleRich
This is something that I thought about when reading the “K-Punk on Weed” thread when an argument developed about the relative merits of science and philosophy. It occurred to me that the distinction was more to do with the divide between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy (theory).
Obviously I know nothing about this but as far as I can see (I’m waiting to be corrected) the former seems to depend on logical argument and values clarity of expression while the latter is more to do with feelings and ideas that are not necessarily argued in a rational fashion (and even seems to be deliberately difficult to understand at times) as there is a belief that some things transcend logical treatment. My girlfriend (studying philosophy at present) says that this divide is very pronounced and that the analytic side don’t consider the other lot as philosophers at all.
I notice that a lot of people on this board regularly quote names that I believe are related to theory and that is normally where my ability to follow the thread ends so I look to you lot for insight. I would like really to get some handle on what this divide is about, whether the continental philosophers have a similarly low opinion of the analytic philosophers and what riposte would be made to people who say that theory is just pseudo-philosophy made wilfully obscure so that no-one notices?
Cheers.
Obviously I know nothing about this but as far as I can see (I’m waiting to be corrected) the former seems to depend on logical argument and values clarity of expression while the latter is more to do with feelings and ideas that are not necessarily argued in a rational fashion (and even seems to be deliberately difficult to understand at times) as there is a belief that some things transcend logical treatment. My girlfriend (studying philosophy at present) says that this divide is very pronounced and that the analytic side don’t consider the other lot as philosophers at all.
I notice that a lot of people on this board regularly quote names that I believe are related to theory and that is normally where my ability to follow the thread ends so I look to you lot for insight. I would like really to get some handle on what this divide is about, whether the continental philosophers have a similarly low opinion of the analytic philosophers and what riposte would be made to people who say that theory is just pseudo-philosophy made wilfully obscure so that no-one notices?
Cheers.