The most intriguing part of chapter two was how philosophers on each side of the divide believe themselves to be right and that they do not need the other side. While some neutral philosophers say that it is possible to philosophize one without the other they will never know what the whole of both could do. Because humans are concerned with both knowledge and wisdom and philosophy requires critical and logical thinking. The truth will not be found in accepting one and denying the other to be wrong. But that perhaps both are right just in different aspects of it and they cannot be compared to one another such apples to apples.
Chapter four asks, can philosophy change the world? Judging by history the answer I think most certainly is yes. For the better? That would be impossible to say. Rorty claims that analytic philosophy deals with problems (original thinking), while continental deals with commentary on others works. Is claim true? Do continental philosophers just base their work off of an “analysis” of someone else’s?
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
"The truth will not be found in accepting one and denying the other to be wrong. But that perhaps both are right just in different aspects of it and they cannot be compared to one another such apples to apples."
ReplyDeletethat reminds me of the passage, "truth in things philosophical will not be attained by affirming one side and denying the other, but as Mill says 'by taking the other's view in addition to it's own'" (pg 48). Reading that reminds me of the methphor of the trees we read in our first reading of Kant. The competition between the two pushes each other higher and higher. This seems optimistic on a humanity level when talking about enlightenment. However, on the individual level, in terms of enlightenment, can an individual be both continental and analytical at once?