Topics Philosophy

Question My question seems to be a simple one but I haven't been able to find a balanced answer to it so easily. As far as I can ascertain, there are two broad schools of philosophy, the Analytic school and the Continental school. Whilst Analytic philosophy focuses upon logic and reason and favours empirical or evidential arguments that focus to examine very clearly defined concepts, Continental philosophy tends to focus on a more abstract theorising that I am lead to believe, rejects the empirical and the rational as the means to discovering knowledge, and even treats knowledge, truth, and ideas in a much more relative manner. Therefore my question is as follows: "Does Continental philosophy really eschew logic and reason, if so then on what basis are credible arguments made? If this is not the case, then what is the general difference between the two schools and why should it be taken seriously in opposition to Analytic philosophy which at face value seems to be much more accessible and 'down to earth' in the common sense of the word. Also, are the two schools largely incompatible with each other?"

Accepted:
August 1, 2013

Comments

Hi! the question you raise points to a very large set of historical and philosophical issues, and one that, so far, has sustained an equally large mass of scholarship! I'd offer three thoughts on this.

1. The characteristics often proposed for one of these two camps often apply equally as well to the other - for instance, enthusiasm for science, predilection for abstract theorising, careful attention to rational argumentation can be found on both sides of the divide (if there is one!) There is a nice discussion of this in Steven Burwood et al, 'Metaphilosophy: An Introduction' (Cambridge 2013).

2. The norms and forms of philosophical argumentation are not fixed - they are historically and culturally variable, even if, in many cases, they can survive 'de-contextualisation' to a high degree. So the Buddha, Socrates, Aquinas, Boyle, Nagarjuna, Dilthey, Quine, and Heidegger all argue, but the forms, presuppositions, presuppositions, etc., that inform and shape those arguments are very different - so a degree of historical understanding and sensitivity to context is - at least in my view - an essential component of good philosophical practice.

3. The analytic and Continental traditions - whatever they might be - are still both components of a larger philosophical tradition - namely, the Western philosophical tradition, and there are, historically, two other major philosophical traditions, namely the Indian and the Chinese. Even if the distinctions between the Western, Indian, and Chinese traditions is not more or less easy to mark out than that between analytic and Continental, it is worth emphasising that philosophy, both in the present and in the past, was not confined to the West.