The “Divide”: Continental and Analytic Philosophy
In the New York Times, Gary Gutting provides this interesting analysis of the Continental/Analytic divide.
While substantially interesting, the end of his analysis begins trend towards the perpetuation of stereotypes which may not be helpful to the conversation, particularly the idea that Continental philosophy could “learn from” Analytic philosophy’s clarity. While it is certainly true that many Continental authors tend to drift towards the obscure (I’m looking at you Derrida and Deleuze!), it should also be noted that Analytic philosophy relies upon a jargon which is absolutely impenetrable to the uninitiated. In the end, it seems that both branches of philosophy are working to answer questions which simply cannot be answered without the development of unique linguistic tools and shorthand.
Is it possible to consider the “divide” without relying upon these unhelpful stereotypes (i.e. Continental is obscurantist and Analytic is boring)? Toward this end, I hope to soon (perhaps after I finish my work with the Theses on Feuerbach) begin some work with Wittgenstein from a Continental perspective.