Good analytic philosophy is like a laser beam: Precise, clear, but very narrow.

Continental philosophy tends to be broader and a little more abstruse. If you receive a philosophical education in the US it's probably going to be analytic or possibly pragmatic. I've heard continental is more popular in Europe.

EDIT: Analytic philosophy can be super-critical. What we would do is basically read an article, construct the author's argument with his premises, and then basically once that's done look for potential criticisms. I always needed to be very precise with wording.

AP relies on conceptual analysis and formal logic/truth tables.

What is analytic philosophy, exactly? In ten words or less, if you can. — Banno

An 'analytic philosopher' attempts to clarify problems* until they're solvable. :nerd:

Means in need of critical ends.

What are the characteristics specific to analytic philosophy, ...

Primarily, tools and techniques 'borrowed' from - developed for - linguistics, logic and/or mathematics. Thus, (stereotypically?) the rigorously incremental, descriptive and instrumental clarity of her statements and arguments.

as opposed to... what?

Well ... a 'continental philosopher' attempts to filter-out, or foreground, intractable questions from the background noise of (apparently) answered, or tractable, ones. Hermeneutics, semiotics and/or phenomenology seem to predominate. As well ambiguity (and obscurity) of his expressions since 'clarity' is often (mis)taken as a symptom of shallow - insufficient (ideologically given or blocked?) - explication. :cry:

Ends in need of unambiguous means.


*(non-trivial formal, conceptual, methodological & theoretical)

Are you vandalizing Wikipedia now? Seriously, unless you are very knowledgeable about the subject (which, no offense, you are not), don't touch anything.

The Wiki article on Analytic Philosophy is a shocker — Banno

I'm no philosopher, but the article looks good to me. What in particular do you find in error? Be specific, please. :chin:

Can’t see anything the matter with the entry. Analytical philosophy is after all discourse about discourse, words about words.

I thought it looked ok. The main thing I learned from analytical philosophy is the art of noticing when an apparently philosophical question is really a case of language use that isnt tied to a particular context.

Was that in there?

Continental philosophy — BitconnectCarlos

,

Isn't the juxtaposition between analytic and continental a bit trite? Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy?

I've been vandalising Wiki for longer than I care to contemplate.

Successfully, since many articles there have had my words for quite a while. Perhaps I do know something after all...

@Pfhorrest is another vandal. We are wondering who else we might bring on board.

AP relies on conceptual analysis and formal logic/truth tables. — schopenhauer1

So....

Other branches of philosophy don't do this?

Dot point lists in the lead? Ugly.


That's a start.

The main thing I learned from analytical philosophy is the art of noticing when an apparently philosophical question is really a case of language use that isnt tied to a particular context. — frank

Yeah - I agree. Is that enough?

Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy? — Banno

No. A contrast of complementaries rather than opposites. Means-ends. Ends-means. As you've suggested elsewhere ... You've another in mind?

Yeah - I agree. Is that enough? — Banno

Walter Kaufman said philosophy has always been divided: analytical vs existential. He said it's very rare to see a philosopher who's both. He thought Socrates might have been both.

I like that take because it's not biased for or against. I never listen to biased explanations.

You've another in mind? — 180 Proof

Nuh. Stirring the possum.

I'm Reading Grayling's History of philosophy. I love the quote "[AP} is not really a new style, except in one particular, which is it employment of tools drawn from the new logic that Frege, Russell and others developed..."

The Wiki article needs something along these lines.

Four years at uni. All work handed in then marked down if you used Wiki as a reference.

He thought Socrates might have been both. — frank

Analytic/continental - analytic/discursive. Isn't the standard interpretation that Socrates was analytic, but Plato's version him was discursive? that is, full of shite.

I suppose an alternative distinction - if one must be made - would be analytic/synthetic.

Four years at uni. — Brett

:razz:

I've done seven years time; plus that funny little bit were I got confused and did a course on entrepreneurship majoring in Ancient History.

Analytic/continental - analytic/discursive. Isn't the standard interpretation that Socrates was analytic, but Plato's version him was discursive? that is, full of shite. — Banno

See, if you wrote an article about analytical philosophy, I'd pick up on your bias and abandon you pretty quickly. I want as close to zero bias as I can get, especially if it's something new to me.

I think rather it’s the other way around: Continental philosophy is all contemporary philosophy not closely aligned with the Analytic tradition.

Anyway, nice to see Banno running with my half-thought-out idea from another thread. Wikiproject Philosophy really needs new blood.

Come have a go. If you fuck the wikipedia up badly the real experts might get angry enough to do something about it.

I still think the folk here don't have the balls to put their ideas to a real test.

Here, I can be as biased as I like.

In the other place, it's different.

a course on entrepreneurship majoring in Ancient History. — Banno

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

As one of the people usually reverting people who fuck things up badly, I welcome anyone here to risk it.

It’s literally one click to fix anything you break, and if you stick around to talk to the people who revert it, you’ll probably stand a good chance of making improvements. “Be bold” is literally the first step of the normal wiki process (followed by reversion and discussion if there are any problems with your bold moves).

The more eyes the better, and WP philosophy articles have sadly few eyes on them.

“Be bold” — Pfhorrest

And, surprisingly, it works - @SophistiCat?

Isn't the juxtaposition between analytic and continental a bit trite? Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy?

Well, there's also pragmatism.

I think a case could be made for what you're saying but in my experience the two schools have veritable differences at least looking to the past. Maybe they are converging; I don't know.

Analytic philosophy is just industrialized thinking. Robots will do it better in a few years.

Other branches of philosophy don't do this? — Banno

I was trying to keep it 10 words or less. To elaborate, as far as I know, continental philosophy is based on more of a historical approach/ systems approach. It is more free form. Analytic philosophy is mainly based on a few assumptions in its methodology: language analysis matters (as errors in vague language can lead to pseudo-statements or "nonsense"), science matters (as what is said about the universe must be assumed to be verified/falsified through empirical observations/experimentation), and logic matters (as how ordinary language can be reconstructed to become coherent analytic statements is most important for any "truth" to be discovered about the terms used). Analytic philosophy is thus heavily based on analysis of language for underlying logic, analysis of empirical/scientific data, and making sure language is clear and precise without any ambiguities. At least, that is the goal perhaps.

What gets lost with this emphasis is often the structural understanding of metaphysics/epistemology that you would get with the contintentals who are more willing to provide big picture understandings. This approach is more adventurous and related to normal human thought-process, but the downside is the terms are often bogged down in vague self-referential terms. However, continental philosophy done well, takes into account clarity of language used, defines its terms well, and provides a step-by-step basis for the system-building.

In both analytic and continental traditions, often people can be speaking past each other as each are working in their own little sphere of historical development where the terms are only clear to those specialized in them. The most useful philosophical texts, in my opinion, would provide historical understanding of terms, methodology, and approaches, thus providing context of why they are using the ones they are. This is of upmost significance in philosophy where nothing is set in stone. It is not a science like chemistry, where terms can be assumed and not explained from historical development. That is my opinion though.

Analytic philosophy is just industrialized thinking. Robots will do it better in a few years. — Pneumenon

Perhaps the same will be said of mathematics. There's a crew working indirectly on that project on this very forum. :smile: