Do You Prefer Analytic or Continental Philosophy?

My journey into philosophy was initially fueled by the clarity and accessibility of analytic philosophy. This perspective emphasizes the use of clear, everyday English to convey ideas and arguments, making it easier for readers to engage with the material and evaluate the arguments themselves. An historical problem in philosophy, particularly in earlier periods, was the use of vague and ambiguous language, which can often obscure the actual meaning. This approach to philosophy aims to address this issue and ensure that philosophical discussions remain open and accessible to a wider audience.

A Personal Perspective on Analytic Philosophy

While I appreciate the rigor and clarity of certain analytic philosophers, I must admit that some of the figures in the “continental” tradition, such as Jacques Derrida, can be notoriously obscure. However, it is worth noting that not all continental philosophers fall into this category. Some, like Edmund Husserl, are well-explained by their respective analytic counterparts, which has allowed me to develop a better understanding of their ideas.

For example, Husserl’s philosophy centered around ontological issues, some of which resonated with the work of Gottlob Frege, particularly his Platonist ontology. This means that Husserl’s ideas can be better understood when compared to the works of other analytic philosophers, facilitating a clearer grasp of his arguments.

My Intellectual Temperament and Philosophical Interests

During my undergraduate years at a large state university, my intellectual pursuits mirrored my passions in a distinctive way. While many of my fellow philosophy majors were drawn to mathematics and natural sciences, I found myself more engaged with the history of cinema and literature. The philosophy department at my university was predominantly oriented towards the analytic tradition, which was both frustrating and challenging for me. This was especially evident when I attempted to grapple with the works of philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, who were more traditionally associated with the continental tradition.

My graduate studies at a smaller institution with a strong focus on European philosophy provided me with a different intellectual environment. It was around this time that I delved deeply into the works of philosophers such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, who were emerging as prominent figures in the field due to their new and fashionable status. Their narratives and arguments captivated me, largely due to their distinctive prose styles.

Challenges and Promising Philosophers

While the analytic tradition offers the possibility of progress and clear communication, some of its practitioners fall into the trap of overly technical and unengaging prose. Notably, some analytic philosophers, like Ruth Garrett Millikan, can be quite challenging to read. Despite this, figures like Willard Van Orman Quine and Philosophers of language such as M.C. Fiske, Donald Davidson, and Hillary Putnam provided a counterbalance to the more obscure aspects of the tradition.

Reflecting on some of the prose styles that I find particularly enjoyable, such as those of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and even Jacques Derrida in his early works, I can attest to the sheer pleasure of reading these authors when they are at their best. The clarity, depth, and power of their writing can be a true delight.

Of course, prose style is just one aspect of a philosopher’s appeal. Ultimately, the content and the insights offered by a philosopher’s work are what truly matter. While the fashionable problems being debated within the analytic tradition can be compelling, I sometimes find them less engaging, possibly due to a certain age-related fatigue or simply a different intellectual temperament.

Interestingly, my exposure to Richard Rorty around 1982 had a profound impact on my views of the analytic tradition. After reading his critiques, I found it increasingly difficult to take the tradition seriously. This experience led me to devote a significant portion of the next ten years to studying works by figures such as Heidegger, which, while enriching, may have not been the most productive use of my time.

Looking back, I can’t help but wonder if devoting that time to re-examining the works of John Dewey or rediscovering the writings of Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson might have been more rewarding. But perhaps these reflections are merely a post hoc rationalization of my choices.

In conclusion, while I have my preferences, the question of whether to prefer analytic or continental philosophy is deeply personal and rooted in one's intellectual temperament and interests. Despite my initial leanings towards the analytic tradition, I have found that the prose styles of many continental philosophers can be equally, if not more, engaging and enlightening.