Talk:Contemporary Philosophers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of philosophers[edit]

Thought I just filled out the lists of contemporary continental and analytical philosophers, I'm now thinking that we already have a list on the bottom of the page, and keeping both lists up to date is going to be quite a chore. I guess we can probably fit more philosophers on this page than on the box doodad, but I'm wondering a little if its worth it or if there is an easier way. -Seth Mahoney 17:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Boxes at the top[edit]

I was also wondering if anyone knows what's going on at the top of this article? Is it just because there's no intro text? -Seth Mahoney 17:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)



Charles Taylor seems to be more of a continental philosopher than an analytic philosopher in spirit. -Goethean 15:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That really reflects the fact that the analytic-continental distinction hasn't really been meaningful in decades. The most influential and siginificant European philosophers--think Habermas, or Descombes--interact regularly and fully with Anglo-American philosophers, and utilize the same "analytic" methods. Conversely, most major secondary literature on the "Continental" philosophers of the last two centuries--Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger--is done in an analytic vein, whether it's done in the English-speaking world or on Europe. The distinction only still exists to divide philosophers from a number of (mostly French, for whatever reason) literary critics who have a miniscule presence in academic philosophy and are read mostly in literature (and occasionally mediocre sociology) departments--Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard. Charles Taylor is as analytic as anyone else on that list; other "analytic" philosophers, such as Rorty, or Brandom, make as much use of work done on the continent and are no less "analytical" for it. This distinction should be eliminated as a spurious subcategory of Contemporary philosophers. (Though it makes perfect sense to divide the historical philosophers--from, say, the 1820s to the 1970s--into analytic and contintal groups)

Critical realism[edit]

Does Roy Bhaskar and critical realism rate a mention in this section? I would argue that he is a contemporary philosophers, and critical realism is a contemporary philosophy.--Fermion 07:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anglo-American francophobia[edit]

Goethean writes: "The distinction only still exists to divide philosophers from a number of (mostly French, for whatever reason) literary critics who have a miniscule presence in academic philosophy and are read mostly in literature (and occasionally mediocre sociology) departments--Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard"

Derrida a literary critic? The philosopher that mainly wrote on philosophy and the works of other philosophers?

This is as good a reason as any why the continental/analytical distinction is still valid. Those proclaiming to belong to the analytical vein seem still to be held by an self-righteous urge to dictate what is and what is not philosophy. This demarcation is mostly done informally, and always on irrational groundings, they do not like the "style" of this and that. American philosophy studends seem to harbour a disinclination for all thing french; and do not even make the effort of reading modern french thinkers. Their logic goes: A frenchman, and not Descartes, ergo: a fraud and humbug. They never even bother to read these thinkers, and their argument is often ad hominem.

It would make an interesting research, in the spirit of the french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, to study why american philosophers hate french intellectuals, and why so many people feel betrayed that the English departments would rather read Sartre and Derrida than Searle or Quine. One hypothesis could be that many french intellectuals have criticised american foreign politics, american culture hegemony and world-domination policy, - something which analytical departments have avoided (complicitly or not with the ruling powers)

In European Universities Derrida, Lyotard and Baudrillard are widely read and by many considered far more profound and clearthinking, than some obscure logical solipsism practiced in the anglo-american tradition. Although the popularity of Lyotard and Baudrillard have been dwindling their impact on the philosophy of art are considerable. Derrida, however, is gaining evermore ground among those european philosphers that have increasingly been reading anglo-american philosophy in search for profound theories on language and meaning.

Whether or not the term analytical philosphy denotes anything meaningful anymore it can be used about the sort of academic philosophy that considers its main goal to be the Champions of Exclusion; to pass on judgements on what is rational and what is nonsense, what is essential and what is trivial, what is human and what is artificial, what is real and what is fake. And this is almost always done blindly in ignorance of ones sex, class or ethno-centric bias.

Continental philosophy is by nature more diverse and therefore a greater difference of quality can be found in this tradition. It his however closer to the Socratic goal to be in wonderment towards the enigma of the World and accept Reason wherever it can be found, whether it be said in a childs mouth, american or french. Even if Reason needs to be re-examined in true philosophical inquiry.

Continental v. analytic[edit]

I see no-one's posted here since April, so I may not get a response, but I'm wondering about the validity of the split between analytic and continental philosophers For example, I've just posted Steven Best's name: he specializes in continental philosophy, but was probably trained in the analytic tradition because he did his degrees in the States. So which list should be in?

Would anyone mind if I got rid of the split in this table? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)