Jump to content

Talk:Continental philosophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis on contingency?

[edit]

The emphasis on contingent practice is not part of certain other philosophies which are still considered continental: such as the late Heidegger. I understand there is a source but it must be noted that several philosophers do not share such a vision; the source (which is in fact analytical) ignores several disciplines. Unless you don't count the late Heidegger as analytical, there is an huge hiatus here: he never spoke of any theory of practice. Neither did Bergson as far as i recall. Posting this here hoping for a future edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.48.181 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the Spectacle?

[edit]

Does Society of the Spectacle really belong in the list of works if there is no reference to Debord or situationists in the body? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.151.50 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

contingental?

[edit]

Could contingency be the source of the name?

As opposed to analyzing the world rationally and coming to the conclusion about how the world MUST be, perhaps the philosophers who would empirically check what ACTUALLY IS and come up with a simplified way of knowing (and thus "explaining") what the world WILL PROBABLY BE, and how the world PROBABLY BECAME WHAT IT IS? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Works

[edit]

I would like to suggest that some works by Kant be added to the "Significant Works" section, since Kant is a major player in the continental tradition. Suggested works: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason. Night-Mare198 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not understandable common themes

[edit]

"The themes proposed by Michael E. Rosen derive from a broadly Kantian thesis that knowledge, experience, and reality are bound and shaped by conditions best understood through philosophical reflection rather than exclusively empirical inquiry"

Since these philosophical reflections are based on experiences (empirical) which even are needed in Kants idealism and other forms of "continental philosophers" and empirical inquiry also requieres some form of reflective conclusion making as in data analysis of inferential statistics I have reason to believe that this whole debate and the whole attempt to differentiate between both kind of philosophies is a big pile of nothing. Can you imagine an exclusively empirical inquiry with no reflection (Constructing a test, setting definitions and logical rules to abide by, examining the probability of the data we perceive under the null, interpreting again)?

If there was a difference Rosens proposition would weaken the credibility.

Now that I read more than this statement in the opening and the more detailed outlaying of the common themes I start to wonder how one could even seriously consider themselves an analytical philosopher. Apart from the name there is not much analysis going on if one doesn't consider the Zeitgeist and cultural context and more importantly introspectively own psychological aspects of ones attempt to figuring out the world. Empirical inquiry without metaphysics is pointless, there would literally be no reason to do so because a reason requires some preposition of a goal that is unavailable to empirical inquiry. We will always end up with the reflection of what we empirically perceive. Look at Wisschenschaftstheorie (sorry don't have the english translation right now). Karl Popper would be considered an analytical philosopher right? His demand for falsificationability is very much status quo in statistics and at the same time a philosophical reflection of the conditions under which we examine empirical data. He came to these conclusions by reflecting and not by observing data. Furthermore there are plenty of sciences who rightfully deem examining the timely circumstances and the history of their studys very important. Especially social sciences!

Last Edit: I read some Whitehead and I think I got too emotional. In the end continental and analytical philosophers might come together in dialectic fashion to realize they never have been separated.

185.111.69.134 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]