Thoughts About the Analytic/Continental Distinction


The so-called Continental-analytic division within philosophy is not a philosophical distinction; it’s a sociological one. It is the product of historical accident. It is unreasonable to cleave to it, and the insistence on remaining closed to work that is either presumptively “analytic” or presumptively “Continental” is irrational and unphilosophical. Further, rejecting or refusing to consider positions one has not studied and consequently does not understand is not a philosophical stance. It is, if anything, the very antithesis of the philosophical attitude. In light of this conclusion, I prefer to the extent possible not to use the terms “Continental philosophy” and “analytic philosophy.” They perpetuate the divisions of the past, divisions that it behooves us to overcome.

The above is from a short essay by Bill Blattner (Georgetown), “Some Thoughts About ‘Continental’ and ‘Analytic’ Philosophy,” which I thought would be of interest to readers in light of the recent discussion here.

There are 14 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  
Please enter an e-mail address