Analytic Philosophy in the Free Will Debate

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

In the realm of the free will debate, analytic philosophy has significantly contributed since the 70s. Notably, philosophers like Strawson have introduced original and mostly correct ideas, diverging from traditional views by existentialists such as Deetor and Spinoza. Although Strawson's work is complex and not unanimously understood, it has become a pivotal piece within analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy's approach has allowed for progress and a deeper understanding of the issue of freedom and responsibility, even though there are disagreements and some misunderstandings in the literature.

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.