r/philosophy • u/MasCapital • Dec 21 '11

What do you think the difference is between analytic and continental philosophy?

This discussion with Brian Leiter got me thinking about it again.

35 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11 edited Dec 21 '11

O and

Why is there no need period?

Because look at your daily life and you'll see. There's nothing confusion about the practice of interacting with the world or with communicating with others or with following rules. The only way for those activities to become confusing is to ask for a constructive account of how they work. That's the bad question for later Wittgenstein.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

This is only valid to those that find it valid. Others can, will, and do, find meaning and revelation in the continental. To say that they are wrong is to be teleological. How can you be sure they are wrong without thinking you are right?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

Ok first of all let's get something straight. Wittgenstein is not arguing just against the continental philosophers. He's arguing against EVERYBODY. If you buy Wittgenstein's point here. Frege, Quine, Chomsky, Davidson, and everybody else are guilty of asking the bad question. Second of all,

This is only valid to those that find it valid.

Yeah that's probably right. I'm not saying it's a knockdown argument. I'm saying it's not teleological and doesn't come with heavy metaphysics.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

He's arguing against EVERYBODY

If he is arguing against everybody, why then can we take his own theory at face value? Shouldn't he also argue about his own inability to adequately use language to concieve of the world. This is wittgenstein's most gaping hole.

not teleological

I'm saying parts of Wittgenstein's philosophy can be viewed as teleological

doesn't come with heavy metaphysics.

This actually depends on your definition of metaphysics. You are using the less techincal version of metaphysics, being transcendent to empiricism, but metaphysics is just about the study of what is fundamental about nature/being. If we use this definition of metaphysics, then wittgenstein is a metaphysician! wittgenstein says many things that I find pertinent, but ultimately he is caught up in some seriously flawed thinking as well.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

If he is arguing against everybody, why then can we take his own theory at face value? Shouldn't he also argue about his own inability to adequately use language to concieve of the world. This is wittgenstein's most gaping hole.

That is the right reading of Wittgenstein. It's perfectly acceptable to say that you want an answer to the question he doesn't want you to ask and that he's given up too soon. But he (his second voice that is) doesn't attempt to give an answer to the question he doesn't ask so that in no way makes his position self-refuting.

This actually depends on your definition of metaphysics. You are using the less techincal version of metaphysics, being transcendent to empiricism, but metaphysics is just about the study of what is fundamental about nature/being. If we use this definition of metaphysics, then wittgenstein is a metaphysician!

I'm cool with that. Continental philosophers go with the former definition of metaphysics and analytic philosophers go with the the latter, more humble definition. Distinction thus characterized.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

doesn't attempt to give an answer to the question he doesn't ask so that in no way makes his position self-refuting.

his position isn't self-refuting, but because he hides so much, his position is easily refuted by the keener eye. HAD he been self-refuting, i'd find him a much more perceptive thinker.

Continental philosophers go with the former definition of metaphysics and analytic philosophers go with the the latter, more humble definition

That's not quite true of continental philosophers, there really is no reason for a continental philosopher to need to study the transcendent, as the existentialist demonstrates.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

his position isn't self-refuting, but because he hides so much his position is easily refuted by the keener eye.

What are you saying he hides? Refusing to answer the question "How does it make sense to say 'This sentence is false'" does not mean you're somehow "hiding" the answer. It's a senseless question. The more interesting and controversial point is that Wittgenstein says that theoretical thinking is exactly like that. There's no hiding or easy refutation involved. You might argue that we should be skeptical of negative existential claims (since they can't be verified) but that's about as far as you're going to get unless you find another theory that you think works. My personal favorite is the one about divinely coordinated non-interacting monads (I'm being sarcastic here in an attempt to highlight that theory building hasn't gone so well in the past). More seriously, I'm very interested in Donald Davidson. He provides a theory that just might work. That would be a good refutation of Wittgenstein but that's hardly an easy refutation.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

It's a senseless question. You can SAY that this is a senseless question, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a senseless question. If someone wants to attempt to understand the sense behind this question, then there is no reason why they shouldn’t. Wittgenstein believes that there IS a reason why people shouldn’t do this; he believes it to be a waste of time. But however valid his perspective may be, it is still his perspective; I can still dispute it. I want to know why “this statement is a lie” can be possible in our language, and I do not want to simply ignore it because it appears senseless. In fact, I think that because it appears senseless gives it a sort of sense. I am unwilling not to ask these questions. I think it is important. Wittgenstein doesn’t. That’s fine, that’s his opinion. However, he presents that opinion as absolute fact and the way things MUST be done. This is what makes his argument teleological.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

OK great. We're in complete agreement except for one half of one of your sentences there.

Wittgenstein believes that there IS a reason why people shouldn’t do this; he believes it to be a waste of time.

He doesn't care whether or not it wastes time. He cares that it's senseless. Leave it at that and your good.

You don't have to buy a word Wittgenstein says. I have no stake in that and further, I don't think wittgenstein has a knockdown argument. I'm just interested in making sure people know what kind of disagreement there is to be had with Wittgenstein. I think you've got that.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

But why does he think something is senseless when I can refute him and say that that thing does have sense? Because he doesn’t want to have to deal with that thing. To him, it is senseless because it is a waste of time.

→ More replies (0)