Wednesday, January 28, 2009

A continuing search for the definition of Continental Philosophy

Chapters 3 & 4 basically continue to outline the history of the split in philosophy in order to demonstrate the differences between Continental and Analytic philosophies. The difference lies in the way that the philosophies are described professionally. On page 38, he talks about the way the two are different is the way that certain philosophers will ally themselves with certain viewpoints. Something that I found really interesting was the fact that he said "Revealingly and significantly, the reception of Continental thought in the English-speaking world has, for the most part, taken place outside of philosophy departments" (41). This point shows what we talked about in class with the two philosophies not being necessarily different, and that their differences might lie more in the method of approach and not in the philosophic views themselves.

1 comment:

  1. What of Critchley's discussion of both reactions to Kant and the feelings of nihilism? Did we conclude in class that it's a question of method alone or is the method chosen for some deeper reason? That is, does the philosopher choose the method because that method makes the most sense for the project or just because it's the method the philosopher likes?

    If it's the former, how are the projects different that they may lead one to different methods?