Analytic vs Continental

[Anonymous No.15734882]

Regarding these two veins of philosophy; why does /lit/ take such a black and white approach when debating their value? wouldn't it be more productive to analyze which methodology an individual philosophical question lends itself to and go from there?

[Anonymous No.15734943]

there was just a fairly long thread about it

>>/lit/thread/S15680141

[Anonymous No.15735009]

>>15734882
>why does /lit/ take such a black and white approach
Only a small handful of people on /lit/ have ever studied philosophy. The vast majority are just shitposters.

[Anonymous No.15735647]

Continental philosophy refers to a 20th century movement, not to every philosopher who ever wrote in the Continent. Yes I will continue to pummel your heads with that point until it stucks.

[Anonymous No.15735709]

metaphysics if real

[Anonymous No.15735734]

>>15735647
Also, almost all the founders of analytic philosophy were born on the continent.

[Anonymous No.15735753]

>>15734882
it's inherent to the continental style that it never actually yields any progress in answering questions. the people in continental philosophy don't care about that, they only care about getting recognition in academia, from pseuds, book sales and interviews etc.
>>15735734
honorary anglos.

[Anonymous No.15736510]

>>15734882
>why does /lit/ take such a black and white approach when debating their value?
For one, they often don't read the people they dismiss. If they did, they would know about the quality of prose or the aesthetic qualities of the philosophical systems described (the way things work in relation to other parts of the system) and realize that most philosophy in both analytic and continental sides of the divide has intellectual and literary merit. Pseuds only think what they subjectively agree with must have value.

[Anonymous No.15736933]

>>15734882
>the endgame of analytic philosophy was actually derived from continental one
oh no no no we got too cocky anglo bros

[Anonymous No.15737214]

>>15734943
Good thread, but somehow I'd missed it. Thanks for the link anon.

[Anonymous No.15737229]

>>15734882
For what it's worth as an amateur, I think analytic philosophy is great, but certain APs tend to dehistoricize a lot of traditional material in the hope of doing "pure" philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15737241]

>>15734882
Late Witt isn't analytical

[Anonymous No.15737303]

>>15734882
In light of philosophy in general, can it be conducted without realizing the significance of the material that it entails? Sometimes I feel like I am suddenly awed and overwhelmed by the implications of certain philosophical ideas, but when I am introduced to new thoughts, it is hard to grasp the weight of the philosophical content itself in order to realize the raw thrust that they bring. Am I not engaging the material rightly if they do not make me shudder?

[Anonymous No.15737670]

>>15734882
Wittgenstein is a Continental philosopher, and Husserl is an Analytical philosopher