Analytic vs Continental Philosophy: Breaking Down Biases

22min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The chapter explores the distinctions between analytic and continental philosophy, challenging traditional biases and stereotypes associated with each school of thought. It delves into the differences in approach, style, and reputation of analytic and continental philosophy, with reflections on personal journeys and influences from key philosophical figures. The conversation highlights the contrast between the methodological framework of analytic philosophy and the preparadigmatic nature of continental philosophy, discussing accessibility and jargon as key issues in engaging with continental philosophical works.

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.