A READER WRITES: “As you doubtless know, there are two main schools of philosophy in the contemporary Western world. The first is Analytic Philosophy, which predominates in the English speaking world, and which often focuses on logic and science. The second is Continental Philosophy, which dominates on mainland Europe, and which is associated with postmodernism and existentialism, and which may be said to be more artistic in outlook. Which school do you favour?”
BB SAYS: I favour neither. A plague on both their houses. My philosophical hero is Socrates, and my guess is he would not have had much time for either Analytical philosophy or Continental philosophy.
From a Socratic point of view, today’s Analytic philosophers are analogous to the Presocratics of Ancient Greece, and today’s Continental philosophers are analogous to the Sophists of Ancient Greece. Socrates is famous for attacking both the Presocratics and the Sophists. If Socrates was around today, I think he would be hostile to both Analytic Philosophers and Continental Philosophers.
Socrates attacked the Presocratics for not putting human beings at the centre of their investigations. For Socrates, the proper study of mankind is man. The Presocratics, by focusing on questions of science, logic, maths and metaphysics, forgot that wisdom consists not in that kind of knowledge, but rather in knowledge of how to live well. In this respect, they were like many contemporary Analytic Philosophers, with their emphasis on logic and science. For example, logic might be a means to the end of attaining wisdom, but by focusing too much on it, a certain type of philosopher is in danger of forgetting the ultimate end towards which he properly must strive. That is true of the Presocratics, and it is also true of today’s Analytical philosophers.
The objections that Socrates directed towards the Presocratics could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Analytical Philosophers and Scientists.
Socrates attacked the Sophists for a different reason. The sophists, like today’s Continentals and postmodernists, were experts in using fancy words in order to impress audiences. They could use clever arguments to confuse people - or to entertain people in order to get attention for themselves, and to attain fame, notoriety and money. But really they were not interested in truth. The Presocratics, for all their faults, were at least genuinely interested in truth. The sophists, on the other hand, had a tendency to indulge in super-sophisticated discourse, the purpose of which was more often to try and impress or confuse, rather than to attain truth.
The objections that Socrates directed towards the Sophists could plausibly be directed at many of today’s Continental philosophers and postmodernists.
Socrates, and those who follow him, represent the true spirit of philosophy. Socrates combined what is best in Continental Philosophy (the openness, and the focus on the human condition, the artistry) with what is best in Analytic Philosophy (the clarity of language and the love of truth, reason and rationality).
So both Continental philosophy and Analytical philosophy are corruptions of true philosophy. At their best (Heidegger in Continental Philosophy and Wittgenstein in Analytic Philosophy) they can teach us useful things and they can approach genuine philosophy. But overall, they have lost sight of the Socratic inheritance. Heidegger is great because he transcends the limitations of the Continental school, and Wittgenstein is great because he transcends the limitations of the Analytic school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a confused post that speaks too little about the content of either category: Analytic or Continental Philosophy. It is complete strawman to distort the premises of another's position then criticize them. You do this when you say that CP uses "fancy words" to simply "impress" others of their conclusion, whatever that may be. The discourses might appear fancy from the outside because you cannot understand what they are saying just as much as someone needs a considerable background to understand even someone like H. P. Grice in the analytic tradition. Their work can be quite lucid such as Husserl's critique of Lipps and psychologism for instance. To say that CP is sophistry is to commit a serious strawman just as much as it is to reduce AP to a modus operandi of the Pre-Socratics is egregious in itself.
ReplyDeleteSocrates would never employ terms and words he didn't know. He would first admit that he did not know and investigate them before even committing to a path with his interlocutor.