Exploring Philosophical Traditions and Psychological Frameworks

14min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The chapter delves into the comparison between continental and analytic philosophers in their engagement with art and literature, examining how continental philosophers deeply incorporate these elements into their work. It also analyzes the divide within psychology, focusing on how certain branches like psychoanalytic theories were marginalized while others gained prominence, highlighting the influence of methodology in shaping the field's direction. The discussion further explores the application of different psychological frameworks in fields like politics and art, contrasting paradigms within psychoanalytic theory with scientific paradigms.

We dig into the biggest rivalry in Tamler’s profession, analytic vs. continental philosophy. Are analytic philosophers truly the rigorous, precise, clear thinkers they take themselves to be? And is continental philosophy really just a bunch pretentious charlatans spouting French and German gibberish and writing obscure prose to mask the incoherence of their ideas? We look at a nice paper by Neil Levy that goes beyond the stereotypes and tries to describe and explain the differences between the two schools. Plus, The University of Austin (sic) is back in the news and we have a report from someone who attended one of their Forbidden Courses. This should be so easy but the article has us deeply conflicted about what to make fun of. [Important update: Trixie is on a 5 day streak of no accidents and is a perfect little sweet girl.]

Links:

An American Education: Notes from UATX by Noah Rawlings

Levy, N. (2003). Analytic and continental philosophy: Explaining the differences. Metaphilosophy, 34(3), 284-304.