Monday, February 2, 2009


Philosophy at its best seems to be a non-existent possibility. It would entail to link the gap between the central idea throughout Critchley, knowledge and wisdom, truth and meaning, theory and practice, causal explanation and existential understanding. It seems as though if one question was asked another would come up to question the reasoning behind the rational. Part of the problem seems to be a never ending criticism of the new ideas that evolve throughout time, to constantly work towards something greater and better and to strive to know why things are the way they are. But is this a problem or a mere step forward in the world we live in? Science seems to answer and put this “problem” to rest, of not knowing; but is that true? As Carnap would argue if it is “meaningless” in the grand scheme of things then it is worthless. I found it interesting that when he wrote his essay in 1933 he used Heidegger as his topic and he didn’t try to prove him wrong but worse he proved that he was worthless, wasting his time. Human beings have and will always possess an ego “self” and having different ideas of how the world should be looked upon. The labels placed upon philosophers are damaging according to Critchley and do no good when working towards fulfilling what philosophy could become.


  1. My opinion on how the remaining philosophers should be read. Would be what I just wrote, not categorizing each prematurely if at all in a distinct group. To philosophize with an open mind on all the possibilities and work towards building that bridge rather than broadening the gap.

  2. "Part of the problem seems to be a never ending criticism of the new ideas that evolve throughout time"

    While it can be argued that continental and analytical philosophy are two fundamentally different ways of approaching philosophy, each with its own concerns, I would argue that their seemingly never ending criticism of each other serves to better our overall understaning of the world. as Cameron said in his post "Philosophy must stop being an indevour just for the philosopher to sharpen her common sense but instead be clear theories that push philosophy and perhaps other fields out of stagnation and keep alive the possibility of new emancipation." I no doubt think that trying to equally give time to both styles of philosophy is a challenge. but, perhaps it is a challenge we must take in order to truly examine the world with as best we can.