What is Continental Philosophy?

Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College

Outline
I. II. Failed definitions Critchleys Wisdom-Knowledge Distinction III. Historicity IV. Critique, Praxis, and Emancipation V. Scientism versus Obscurantism

I. Failed Definitions
The Continental-Analytic Split Bad Labels Bad Caricatures

The Split
Continental Major movements
idealism, phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, hermeneutics, psychoanalysis, structuralism, Marxism, poststructuralism Hegel, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida Blurs line between poetry religion, and philosophy

Analytic
logical empiricism, logical positivism, ordinary language analysis, pragmatism, speech-act pragmatics, naturalism Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Neurath, Hempel, Popper, Austin, Quine, Sellars Blurs line between mathematics, science, and philosophy

Major Figures Caricature

Are the labels correct?

Continental is a misnomer
Many key analytic figures are from Germany and Austria

Analytic is a misnomer
Widespread consensus that there is no such thing as an analytic truth. Pragmatism, naturalism are generally regarded as alternatives to analytic philosophy

So the labels arent correct.

Are the caricatures correct?

Continental philosophers use mathematical tropes and scientific concepts
Topology (Deleuze, Lacan), Set Theory (Badiou) Much of contemporary science studies is Continental in its theoretical orientation (Latour, Pickering)

Analytic philosophers use literary and religious tropes and concepts

The Mystical (Wittgenstein); Frictionless spinning in the void (McDowell); Joycean machines (Dennett)

So the caricatures arent correct.

II. Critchley on the split

Knowledge versus Wisdom Suggested amendment:
Forms of Rationality versus Value of Cultural Practices

Knowledge versus Wisdom

Analytic philosophers concerned with knowledge.
Theoretical concern about how one can be rational in accepting that things are the way they are. Paradigm: Science

Continental philosophers concerned with wisdom.

Practical concern about how to lead a good life, typically construed as life of reflection.

Virtue of Critchleys Distinction

Continental philosophers are concerned with wisdom They are also rarely concerned with knowledge independent of wisdom
Ex. Foucault is interested in how forms of knowledge:
Arise under specific social conditions Serve as vehicles for controlling people

Ex. Habermas is interested in how scientific knowledge presupposes several practical interests

Problem #1 with Critchleys formulation

Analytic philosophers are concerned with ethical, social, political, aesthetic, and religious questions
Analytic studies of morality, applied ethics (bioethics, just war, etc.), justice, law, democracy, poverty, music, art, God, etc. These dont seem terribly scientific or epistemic These also seem important for leading a good life.

Problem #2 with Critchleys formulation

Search for Wisdom Search for meaning of life Meaning of life is unfortunate phrase
Meaning has a long history in analytic philosophy. Life has both a cultural and a biological sense.

Proposed modification to Critchley

Analytic philosophers are concerned with forms of rationality
Regardless of the topic (science, ethics, social and political philosophy), the concern is with providing reasons for a belief, doctrine, action, or policy

Continental philosophers are concerned with the value of cultural practices

A more precise gloss on whats meant by the meaning of life Cultural practices include lifestyles, beliefs, folkways, traditions, etc.

III. Historicity
Recap, and lingering ambiguities Historicity Distance Assessment of Critchleys historicity Alternative account of historicity

Recap and a lingering problem

Thus far, Continental philosophy = philosophy concerned with the value of cultural practices However, analytic philosophy is also concerned with the value of cultural practices, such as science, law, biomedicine, government, etc.

Differences in method
Analytic philosophy is concerned with conceptual problems
Ex. External world, other minds, the objectivity of moral claims

Continental philosophy is concerned with contextualized problems

Ex. Heideggers conception of the external world, Husserls problem of other minds, the objectivity of Marxist moral claims

The biography objection

Contextualizing problems conflates biography and history with philosophy
Heideggers thinking that the external world is knowable doesnt tell us that the external world actually is knowable. For the latter issue, we need rigorous argumentation that can tell us whether or not it is rational to believe in an external world

Historicity: the argument against pure conceptual problems

The historicity claim: a persons beliefs, values, and problems are influenced by (embedded in) his/her historical context
This includes philosophers Ex. Most analytic philosophers of science from the 18th through the early 20th century believed that causation was a metaphysically dubious concept; now it is considered the most central concept in philosophy of science

The limits of the historicity claim

The historicity claim justifies contextualizing problems only if:
There is always a significant distance between us and the people (philosophers) we interpret
i.e., only if our assumptions are very different than theirs If not, then we can treat their problems as identical to our own

Call this the distance claim

Do historicity and distance justify contextualizing problems?

Both the historicity and the distance claims depend on historical and social-scientific facts about us and the people we study The historicity claim is probable The distance claim is contingent, depending on who were interpreting Thus, this shows only that in certain cases, one can contextualize problems productively It does not show that one must always do so; so sometimes the biography objection is wellplaced

A stronger historicity claim

Recall: analytic philosophy is concerned with forms of rationality Forms of rationality depend on historical context
To be continued on Thursday

So analytic philosophy should contextualize problems

Though perhaps not in the same way as Continental philosophy

IV. Critique, praxis, and emancipation

Recap and lingering problem The two cultures solution Critique of the two cultures solution A better solution: critique, praxis, and emancipation
Crisis Historicity again Tradition

Recap and Problem, Redux

Recap: Continental philosophy contextualizes problems concerning the value of cultural practices Problem: How does one contextualize a problem? How does one solve that problem?

The Two Cultures: Critchleys view

Bentham Concern with truth Critically destructive Social change/reform Progressive Analytic Coleridge Concern with meaning Hermeneutically reconstructive Traditional Continental

The Two Cultures: My view

Bentham Concern with rationality Pragmatic Critical Social change/reform Progressive Analytic Coleridge Concern with cultural values Artistic, spiritual Hermeneutical Social reclamation Traditional Continental

The Two Cultures: contextualizing and solving problems

Continental philosophy contextualizes problems concerning the value of cultural practices using quasi-artistic and spiritual hermeneutical methods; It solves those problems by reclaiming certain traditions that have been lost or forgotten

Problems with The Two Cultures model

Continental philosophy typically aims to be:
Progressive by reclaiming traditions, Critical by being hermeneutical; Pragmatic, spiritual, and aesthetic Critical of forms of rationality by hermeneutically reconstructing them as presupposing values of cultural practices, etc.

How do we reconcile these dichotomies?

Critique, Praxis, and Emancipation: The Common Solution

Key idea: We reorient ourselves of our traditions to affect social change We can thus overcome the dichotomies of the two cultures model We can also elaborate how to contextualize and solve problems about the value of cultural practices

Crisis
Producing a crisis (critique) consists of making people aware of the fact that some present set of practices (praxis) is:
Taken for granted; Contingent (because of historicity claim); Bad/Problematic; and Can be changed for the better (emancipation)

Critique, historicity, and praxis

If the historicity claim is correct, then all human experiences are contingent, in that if history had been otherwise, our cultural practices (praxis) may have been different. Thus, historicity implies that the human being is a finite subject embedded in an ultimately contingent network of history, culture, and society (64). This invites us to think about how our practices might have been better, i.e., to critique our practices.

Tradition
One can recover something from a past tradition that heightens awareness of a contemporary problem. This is a critical confrontation or (using Husserls term) reactivated experience of tradition. It is contrasted with a dogmatic reception, taken for granted, or sedimented experience of tradition. Resolves many of the Two Cultures dichotomies

What is Continental Philosophy? The Ultimate Answer!

Continental philosophy argues that certain cultural practices are:
Taken for granted; Contingent; Bad/Problematic; and Can be changed for the better by having a reactivated experience of the tradition from which they arose

V. Scientism versus obscurantism

Continental philosophy of science Anti-science versus Anti-scientism Anti-science as obscurantism

Continental philosophy of science

Continental philosophers often hold that science consists of a set of practices that:
Are easily taken for granted; Contingent; Problematic; and Can be changed for the better by having a reactivated experience of the tradition from which they arose

Example: Heidegger
Science looks at physical objects in abstract and theoretical ways and forgets the practical value that they have in everyday practices. This is one expression of how modern human existence is routinized, mundane, inauthentic, impersonal, etc. Thus, we need to remind ourselves of how objects exist for us in everyday practice.

Scientism and Science

Scientism is (by definition) bad.
Exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Science can be good

Cures for diseases

But it also can be bad

Pollution

Critiques of scientism are often confused with critiques of science.

Ways of critiquing scientism

It privileges knowledge at the expense of wisdom. It fails to recognize that science and technology play a role in alienating human beings from the world, e.g.,
By disenchanting the world By turning all objects into commodities that can be traded without full appreciation of the deeper values they possess beyond a market structure

It fails to recognize that science has its own set of unjustified assumptions, and furthermore, there is no way that these assumptions can be justified scientifically.
Ex.: Habermas critiques scientism on the grounds that it takes for granted the interests underlying the search for scientific knowledge

The Slippery Slope to Obscurantism

Scientisms faults are not sciences faults Failure to appreciate this leads to obscurantism:
A style characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness typically opposed to the spread of knowledge or the exchange of ideas. More precisely, Critchley characterizes this as the rejection of the causal explanations offered by natural science by referring them to an alternative causal story, that is somehow of a higher order, but essentially occult. (118)

VI. Conclusion
Continental philosophy argues that certain cultural practices are:
Taken for granted, contingent, problematic; and can be changed for the better by having a reactivated experience of the tradition from which they arose

Analytic philosophy argues that certain forms of thinking are more rational than others These need not compete with each other

Useful connections
Continental philosophers must show that it is rational to accept that a cultural practice is taken for granted, contingent, problematic, and capable of improvement. Analytic philosophy must examine the historicity of forms of rationality. Productive disagreements distance claims and biography objections Checks and balances against analytic philosophys scientistic tendencies and continental philosophys obscurantist tendencies