Describing the Analytic school as logical and scientific in comparison with the Continental philosophers is the way an Analytic philosopher would describe the divide. It is not a neutral description.

Oh man, I wish this podcast was 10 hours long.

fuck the split I want to learn about all of this!!!

at the start: "oh 43 minutes? i just wanna learn the difference in methods" at the end: "damn. why is everyone being hurried, we need more time this is too short to fully delve into it come on.

Is it just a coincidence that Nietzsche's mustache and Russell's pipe have the exact same curve? I think not.

A superb comparative account of two great strands of modern western philosophy......those two strands are "two different worlds " really....Thanks for posting !

"So you're saying that, in order to avoid ever committing to a position which might be proved wrong in the future, you've decided that the correct position to commit to is one which eschews commitment to any particular position. That is a fundamentally logically flawed position - a self-refutational one, to be more precise." There is a misreading here, your argument confuses the notion of "committing to a position". You seem to assume that this commitment is universally applied to all of one's epistemology. However, one must always have fundamental, if not higher, axioms. This is true of all logical pursuits. The axiom here is based on the premises "scientific pursuit is fallible", and "we should not accept what is potentially fallible as profound truth (but perhaps only as a tentatively useful fiction, which is in some form pragmatism)". The conclusion is that scientific pursuit should be treated as useful fictions at best. The problem with your argument is that it presupposes that one treats all axioms and knowledge as equally fallible. However, this is not how the accumulation of knowledge works: We tend to have more secure axioms closer to the core that we consider less fallible, and if the principle of fallibility is one of them, it is not one which if applied reflexively, necessarily undermines its value as being knowledge. Another way of looking at it is that the principle of fallibility should be an attitude, not necessarily a logical corollary. As much of 20th century philo has gone to show, very little can be demonstrated in pure reason. And yet we still have to act and make assumptions. Being aware that our assumptions are what they are seems to be the principle here. Your line of reasoning is symptomatic of analytic reductionism. It is what I hate in philosophy. But as you have demonstrated, if one were to (pedantically) undermine all axioms, then we would fall into a trap. A form of postmodernism. One we should try to avoid.

I have great respect and admiration for Leibniz, my comment was more directed at existentialism/postmodernism, I wasn't aware that Leibniz fell under that category by virtue of being German. Leibniz is probably one of the most misunderstood/underrated philosophers in history. I'm not widely read in his works (just the Monadology) but I find his idea of the calculus ratiocinator to be immensely intriguing and influential, particularly to Frege's work in formalizing Aristotelian logic.

My appreciations to Madam Beatrice...My place in doing philosophy is exactly this place especially in diagnosing the mere single issues as things plainly appear at very first moment of observations and priorily everything comes down to the what is the be-being-beingness and vice versa and its very very aspects and forms of itself ..Thank you for being such motivational and confirming social philosopher.

Thank you, too - these lists are both wonderful. I particular appreciate the order with which you presented the figures. Thanks, again.

It was a wonderful interview. I had avoided it for some time now, but was prompted to read it after seeing your comment. Thank you.

Another invaluable upload. Thanks so much, Alifeofreason, I'd like to see some vids of you giving some of your own opinions one day!

Well glad to have reminded you. Could I ask you if there is anything you found particularly interesting among Leiter's answers?

Yeah so, if you actually listen to the lecture and read the philosophy book you will see that Analytic Philosphers focused more on logic, while Contitental's focused on experience. It had nothing to do with the "Continent" from whence they came, but more to do with how the Analytical saw the different point of view, compared to their own. BTW many Philosophers were englishmen, Irishmen, Greeks, Romans, Russians (Prussia at some point) , English and French. Do not take it personally, but rather look at it professionally. Philosophy is not about being offended or shouting off opinions. Opinions have research and data to back them up, or findings and proof. I was very appreciative for this lecture, as I am doing a paper on the differences between the two. Thank you!

Wow great prog worth the licence fee. Could do a 2022 version of the discussion and see how opinions have developed.

I alike the ideas from the Continental premise I will now discover my reading list.

Maurice Merleau Ponty wrote, "All the great philosophical ideas of the past century - the philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche, phenomenology, German existentialism, and psychoanalysis - had their beginnings in Hegel...".

...this was a really good upload though, all three scholars gave some fantastic exposition on the topic.

I just began reading the book, and you're right; philosophy wasn't necessarily his motivation, from what I've read thus far, although it really depends on how you'd define philosophy. I see myself on a similar path to your own, except hundreds of paces behind you off in the distance, or taking a similar path minus the formal studies :) Philosophy and, I find, linguistics are key to the search for greater clarity. You got a blog or anything like that about this stuff that I could check out??

I’m am not a trained philosopher but the thought of two branches of philosophy at war with each other is an enigma to me. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and two opposing factions should be working together to find common traits instead of bickering back and forth. When those who are supposed to be the best and brightest cannot get along then all is lost.

I'd love that, if you could let me know when it's up, sounds like an interesting project!!! I'm not quite sure as to what kinds of philosophy interest me, but if I had to choose what interests me most from the very limited amount of information on philosophy that I've acquired so far, I'd say ontological, metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical philosophy; also, linguistic philosophy and philosophy of the mind. I'd say political philosophy too but I've been rapidly losing interest in that.

book (Princeton) and found it enjoyable, and while I missed having a chance to speak with him about it, I am planning on discussing it with Barry. I must say, I've recently been excited by some fine new work being done in Meta-Ethics. Sharon has recently composed a series of Papers that have garnered much attention, and while the world's excitement over Schroeder is understandable, I'm still blown away by Gibbard's new work, as it currently exists online. The Michigan Meta-Ethicists.

Bring back and develop the Continental Spirit!!! It will come because it needs to.

Wow - thank you for the names, I'll definitely look into those figures I'm not familiar with. (Weinstein is pretty interesting, from what I've heard.)

at 20:00 Adorno and Horkheimer's book is "Dialectic of Enlightenment" not "Dialectic of Reason."

For those missing the point, lost, or find this boring it is very clear your grasp of the meaning behind the words in the English language is not advanced. It's natural to be ignorant to a topic if you're new to it, but if you're an adult and wish to sound like a child with your boredom...maybe you need a better self-education!

Who do you read in The Philosophy of Physics? I've been stuck on Maudlin; Tim is a cool guy, and smart as can be, but I was curious as to other figures that you may be able to recommend. Also, have you ever read Putnam's article on Relativity? I had a Philosophy of Space and Time class as an undergrad, and found the class rather interesting, and while Lewis did a fine job in his teaching, the Course Material was rather soft - Particularly given his UC-Irvine background. I recently read Tim's new

You have a strong point regarding The King James Bible - Many students have no familiarity with it, whatsoever. Though, in regard to your comment concerning Heidegger and Nietzsche, I disagree. I know at Penn that Undergrads are required to read Heidegger's Off The Beaten Path in Contemporary Aesthetics and that Nehamas teaches Nietzsche on a regular basis. (I just remembered that 'Life as Literature' was composed while he taught at Penn.) Also, those of us who are a part of the history of

The logical and clarity, which is the Halmark of analytic philosophy, can be seen in continental philosophy; this is in fact psychoanalysis.

The thing is, I'm only 24 years old and I spent the last 10 years of my life in another world, so to speak, therefore, I'm in the process of building up my vocabulary once again, and making up for lost time. So, as for the time being, I know very little about anything at all, except for drugs and everything else you'd find in that scene.. lol... What about you, what kinds of philosophy interest you most??

That screenshot of Nietche makes him appear crazy...which explains why he lived the final years of his life in sanitariums.

Sharon Street - NYU Philosopher - Meta-Ethics Barry Loewer - Rutgers Upcoming Conference I'm attending. You should read Gibbard - he's amazing.

What is the name of this podcast?

The answer of every problem in Analytic Philosophy is ∃x[Fx] whilst the answer to the problems in Continental philosophy is asking the right question (which will never happen). In summary both schools are the death of philosophy.

Why does everyone leave out Alfred North Whitehead? Show some respect.

¨Some of Nietzsche's writings are very clear¨. VERY CLEAR, VERY CLEAR, VERY CLEAR, VERY CLEAR. Hehehehe-

I think a lot of the posters on this thread would do well to look at Simon Critchley, Simon Glendinning, and Richard Campbell's treatments of the so called 'Continental-Analytic divide.' It certainly looks as though the phenomena is widely misunderstood; and a proper investigation into the underpinnings of the 'schism' reveal more of an inherited parochialism on the part of those who understand the two 'schools' as radically different (let alone as coherent wholes)

included in one of the 2 most important Kant books of the 80's - 'Kant and The Claims of Knowledge,' - the text that had a Strawson-like impact on the Kant Industry, and sparked the decade-long debate between Henry Allison and Guyer. Something else I find to be of note is that, and Guyer was robbed here, his Article, which took 1-year to write while a Fellow at Oxford, was not selected by The Philosopher's Annual, whereas Nehamas's Article was - perhaps it was due to that particular year having

I think the split occured before... Hume and Kant spring to mind.

The decision by analytical philosophers that analytical philosophy is all you need is political. Specifically, it is the liberal politics of Descartes. Nor is the problem only with ethical questions. In fact, the idea that you can categorize certain things as _ethical etc._ before you know the meaning of _meaning_ is political. It is a _policy_ of prejudice.

Perfect circle

@Muhak -That's exactly correct - Mis-Readings by Hegel of Kantian Esthetics and Ethics are a topic of much interest - to me, at least (also, if you've read Herman's Edited Vol. of The Rawls Lectures on Moral Philosophy, you'll see that a correct (according to Rawls) reading of Kantian Ethics leads one to see the errors in Hegel's readings. I feel strongly that these mis-readings led to a Post-Modern revolt (by some figures) against the systematic philosophy of Transcendental Philosophers - Kant

Pennsylvania Philosophy are proudest of The Philosophical Review, XCII, NO. 2, where Paul Guyer published what may be the greatest Article on Kant that The Philosophical Review has ever printed (Closest competition? 'The Possibility of The Categorical Imperative,' also composed by Guyer); that very same issue from 1983 includes one other Article, one that would go on to become part of 'Life as Literature,' Nehamas's greatest accomplishment. Guyer's Article, somewhat interestingly, went on to be

If I had to narrow down the field, I'd say my preference is, foremost, ontological philosophy, followed by epistemology, philosophy of the mind, and linguistic philosophy (but these last three aren't in any specific order). Dude, I am totally amateur when it comes to philosophy, if not incompetent, so it's all good :) I'm not so much interested in political philosophy, just anarchy.

"Among the truths long recognised by Continental philosophers, but which very few Englishmen have yet arrived at, one is, the importance, in the present imperfect state of mental and social science, of antagonistic modes of thought." John Stuart Mill, "Coleridge" (1840?)

I was just throwing out the main term he uses - My Ancient Phil. Prof. said that the term was used so as not to connote anything that would come with the word we regularly use in its place.

I'm a neo-Kantian, but I do think that Heidegger has made some contributions to Aesthetics. Russell wrote a chapter on Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy, and Nietzsche has some interesting works, though they tend to ramble on into nonsensicalness. Beyond Kant, I read Harty Field, Saul Kripke, and Nelson Goodman and Peter Klein. These Philosophers have wonderful insights, but some French Thinkers (Camus, Derrida), who aren't really Philosophers, have suffered due to be mired in

The thing is, in our current state of affairs, the state is only necessary to enforce the order (or rather disorder) or the interests of a minority upon the majority. I mean, anarchy is all about spontaneous order. Anarchism does not imply absolutely no management, what anarchism implies instead is that you do not have one group or person dictating to another. Anarchy could be equated to cooperation over competition, and not competition over cooperation, like how the current system of systems is

these pictures are just insane.

Literary Theory, which is itself mired in "Continental Philosophy." I think the split is warranted.

Essentially, we would not need a state to enforce such things, however, judging by the fact that the state is necessary to enforce such things, clearly governments do not represent the interests of the people, which, in turn, is why we have the state.

Philosophy, and the primary figures who've aided in its progression as a sub-field of Philosophy (Philosophy of Mind, in some cases, I would argue), we can see, in some instances quite easily, as their having strong Continental leanings: Danto, Walton, Guyer, Carroll [ugh...], Kivy, Nehamas, and, as Guyer called him in the dedication to his Values of Beauty: Historical Readings in Aesthetics (Cambridge, 2005), 'an exemplar of the original, Stanley Cavell. (And can anyone really discount Rorty?)

Why wasn't Cliff Richard invited to give his views?.How rude!

have suffered due to being mired* (excuse me) Hawthorne and Williamson at Oxford are both wonderful, as well. A younger Philosopher named Troy Cross (Ph.D, Rutgers, Yale, Oxford Fellow), who, with only a handful of Articles to his name, is nonetheless one of the most exciting younger writers today. (Ted Sider is great, too.)

My definition of the difference: Analytic philosophers insist on defining the terms they use. Continentals don't care about definitions, and they have the right to build concepts with words, with no interest in what these words mean. It is impossible to know what it feels like to be depressed, if you are not depressed yourself. But who can get closer to conveying to you what it feels like to be depressed? A scientific psychologist with her questionnaires, her observaqtions, her focus groups and statistics, or Schopenhauer sitting at his office and coming up with stuff off the top of his head (or other parts of his anatomy)?

If you would like to continue to the conversation, let us change platform. Can you send that message once more in a PM or something?

The could have picked a more flattering picture of Nietzsche.

Yeah you did!

hearing these people talk for nearly an hour without saying anything is case and point why Chomsky is the last philosopher (who isn't even a philosopher) worth reading or listening to.

At about 36:30. He’s talking about lowering our idea of philosophy to unrefined artistic expression, open to the judgment of subjective opinion primarily. That would be horrible! To lower philosophy in the eyes to public, and further suggesting that it could find no scientific proofs of existential truths As beautiful as song and general art is, relatively few people put stock in them to direct the course of their everyday life. We cannot allow the average person to believe philosophy is so trivial

Analytic philosophy is a kindred spirit of aristotelian thought and continental is a kindred spirit of platonic thought.

Legal Philosophy and Comparative Jurisprudence can be extremely interesting when tied to Translation and Meat-Ethical Issues. I think that is an untapped sub-field of Philosophical Inquiry. Also, are you at all interested in Dispositionalism?

such an intelligent comment

So you're saying that, in order to avoid ever committing to a position which might be proved wrong in the future, you've decided that the correct position to commit to is one which eschews commitment to any particular position. That is a fundamentally logically flawed position - a self-refutational one, to be more precise.

amen.

Keep in mind, Kant was one of the greatest minds to ever reason yet he was wrong about many of his assertions. The same goes for Wittgenstein. Aristotle pioneered the systematic inquiry into nature, formalized logic and literally influenced every philosopher who came after him and yet he was wrong about everything he said. Plato/Aristotle's influence of philosophy are undeniable and the fact that you think Nietzsche is a better philosopher than them indicates that you have not read any of them.

In a nutshell.... Continental Philosophy is concerned with social contexts (certainly where language is concerned)

Existentialism, and the Young Hegelians' readings of Marx. With that said, figures such as Kripke, Russell, and Wittgenstein save the day (for me, at least), as they've influenced such figures as Yablo and Sider, contemporary Philosophers who are doing extremely important work in their fields. Also, Hawthorne, Williamson, Sosa, Goldman, and Klein are doing work, right now, that will secure their positions as future subjects in of Cambridge Companions to -. If we all collectively look at Esthetic

37:45 Why is poetry not part of the academic discursive writing?

I'm pretty sure he indicated his son posted the comment. What do they call the philosophy that means People Suck?

...of the people, peoples around the world on an individual basis would continue to fund science, especially the good science that really matters.

One of the speakers sounds almost like Christopher Hitchens...

If we need to drop the concept of Truth traditional understood as a transcending, objective thing, we should not drop in relativism. relativism is only scepticism of any truth value, which is nihilistic. We should look at truth as circonstancial. to each circonstance its truth. For a mathematician, truth is what comes out of an equation; for a person, truth is what is not a lie.

straw vs hay; neither here nor there!

He was a linguist, yep, but he contributed a lot to the philosophy of language, if you would consider that partial to philosophy. Linguistic determinism would have philosophical implications too, would it not? Also, I have briefly talked to you before, and I admire just how much you know about philosophy in general, so, if you do not mind me asking, how did you learn so much?? My guess is that you must be an older gentlemen, or you went to university or college :)

In reading some of the comments, I can see why philosophy is considered by some to be merely, "mental masturbation". I prefer the exact sciences, like physics. Take Bertrand Russell's advice, " before you become a philosopher, first become a mathematician". (Mathematics=Clear thinking). If you can't think clearly then leave philosophy to those who can.

I'd consider myself an anarchist, for sure; and, that is not to say, I go out and wreck stuff like some anarchists do. I don't really advocate violence, unless it's self-defense. I think anarchy is misunderstood, for the most part. If anarchy was enacted tomorrow, it would have absolutely zero effect on the scientific institution. What's your political stance?

nice nice

In a possible world...maybe... :)

Wow deep man... Write a book!

That's hardly a fair statement. Heidegger has written some wonderfully fascinating pieces, the same goes for both Husserl and Gadamar; and while I agree with Dewey that 'Dualism' is a bad word, I also agree with Dewey that much is to be found in Husserl's Theory of Perception.

Analytical over continental philosophy all day! I am just about to start reading 'Language, Thought, and Reality' by Benjamin Lee Whorf. Does anybody know if he is considered analytical or continental, or neither?

KANT FTW. The godfather of both schools

lol @ that mustache

Analytic philosophy has lost it's identity? I'm not even sure what such a statement could mean.

I prefer being, all things considered, a humorous philosophy a la parody.

Badiou.

It is interesting that only analytic philosophers are consulted in this video. Another word, for the analytic tradition is anglophone. Seems a bit unbalanced.

I'd be happy to dispel that myth.

I do not understand why so many philosophers see Hegel so positively. He was very reactive and put the Prussian State and the Germanic Culture on top of everything as a final and highest point of developement and morality and considered other cultures to be lower and minor. There was no individual persuit of happiness in Hegel's thought. People had to follow and find happiness just under the morality of the state. And that led to blind obidience and order fullfillment, to German nationalism and arrogance towards other nations, and WWI. And please, stop dividing Europe into the continent and the United Kingdom. This is a really silly way of seeing Europe.

I can not express how much I wish I could understand what these men are talking about. Yet I have not a clue. Is this normal for someone who still has a superficial understanding of logic and philosophy?

Analyrical; what he has said makes sense/doesn't make sense based on an objective concept of sense; continental; what he says always makes sense because human beings determine sense.

Nietzsche went insane later in life. A drawing from that period? I find it hard to belief you dont recognize him despite his expression. You must be trolling.

...set-up or functions.

So, clearly, you do not think that the state inhibits the potential of free-markets, or at the very least inhibits the potential of individuals...? It is of my personal opinion that the state clearly inhibits the potential of individuals in a number of ways; one example would be the use of propaganda and blatant fear mongering to amplify the individual's sense of the necessity of state. On another note, to borrow an argument from Stefan Molyneux, if the government truly represented the interest

Daesin.

Analytic "philosophy" is post philosophical considering how far it is removed from continental. Analytics searches for the meaning of meaning.

analytic ftw!

LOL. Nice.

may have suffered the most, as Literary Theorists and Art Critics (DeLeuze, Greenberg) began to appropriate Kant's Philosophy to fit their needs; I feel that to do such a thing is harmful to what Kant gave to us, as well as harmful to Younger Philosophy students (I'm thinking of a specific student at NYU) who have terribly altered Kantian thought to fit their own agendas. Momentarily playing the Devil's advocate, there have been postmodernists aplenty who embrace Marxism, Sartre's readings of