Book: Continental Philosophy

S

Snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
177
Points
63
Continental Philosophy

-by Simon Critchley.

I was going to get a book on existentialism but apparently it falls under the remit of Continental philosophy so I decided it was a better idea (plus more bang for my buck!) to get this book for now, instead. An especially good idea as I know nothing of Continental philosophy – is it what one calls one’s musings over one’s Continental breakfast? Mmmmmmmmmm…..


Simon Critchley is Professor of Philosophy at Essex Uni and Directeur de Programme at the College International de Philosophie, so he should know his croissants from his brioche. :)


s.



s.
 
Preface

Continental philosophy is one expression of the cultural divide between Continental Europe and the English-speaking world. Whether or not it is a well defined area of philosophy is contentious.

Contemporary philosophy faces a large problem: the gap between wisdom and knowledge, between how one knows what ones knows and the existential questions of what it means to live a good life. Much mainstream philosophy has given up on the latter but Continental philosophy still appeals because of its attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice, thus retaining some of the ancient definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom (how to live a good life, the examined life). The goal of Continental philosophy is the emancipation of the individual and society.

Much Continental philosophy is a response to a sense of crisis in the modern world. Its most salient difference from much analytical philosophy (essentially the philosophy of the English-speaking world) is its anti-scientism. This stems from the belief that the natural sciences cannot and should not provide humans with their primary and most significant access to the world. Continental philosophy, because of this has also risked conflation with obscurantism. The two extremes in philosophy to be avoided are scientism and obscurantism, whether Continental or analytical.



Well that’s a promising start! The few “philosophy” books I’ve read have always bored me to tears and now I can put a name to it! – “English-speaking analytical philosophy.” I feel so much better. And on a more positive note, this book will hopefully therefore not have the same effect upon me.

s.
 
o good snoopy l hope you share some nuggets there; as you know l've been delving in to a bit of sartre and heidegger but like science, philosophy builds on the previous paradigm, or smashes it up..heidegger was influenced by nietzche and especially kierkegaard [who did his thesis on socrates and copied their way of using interlocutors/psuedonyms].

Sartre apparently misinterpreted heidegger and put his own spin on it and so ended up with a dualist philosophy which heidegger was completely against [as well as anything metaphysical/idealist al la his own german philosophical past dominated by hegel, which kierk. also railed against]. The main thrust of heideggar was to do away with the concept of substance [aristotle's terms] for human beings, yes their body was substance but their actual being, or essence, was existence only.

Using phenomenology [he was a student under husserl], which is a bracketing out as much as possible concepts accrued, he wanted to affirm dasein, or the being of the human being, was not separate from the world as in analytic philosophy or the pursuit of the sciences [where accepted concepts/theories are essential for further understanding].

Continental philosophy was poohpoohed for ages as obscure in the UK and US but has now been integrated as essential to the human sciences eg the embodied mind, that the body/mind cannot be studied as separate entities. Heidegger did not surprisingly mention perception nor the body, but Merleau Ponty took off where he left off on that score, and l would like to read him but apparently he's murky to read to! [doesn't help that they are translated and why sartre for me was a nightmare to read easily though perhaps his novels are lighter!].
 
nativeastral said:
o good snoopy l hope you share some nuggets there
Click to expand...

well I'm only the messenger of the nuggets if there are; this an idiot's guide- you're clearly well past this stuff so I'll be looking to you for the insights!:)



Sartre apparently misinterpreted heidegger
Click to expand...
doesn't help...:rolleyes:


the concept of substance [aristotle's terms] for human beings, yes their body was substance but their actual being, or essence, was existence only.
Click to expand...
can you elaborate? how did existence, er, exist without substance???

Using phenomenology [he was a student under husserl], which is a bracketing out as much as possible concepts accrued, he wanted to affirm dasein, or the being of the human being, was not separate from the world as in analytic philosophy or the pursuit of the sciences [where accepted concepts/theories are essential for further understanding].
Click to expand...
slow down slow down!!!

the body/mind cannot be studied as separate entities.
Click to expand...
hmmm where've I heard this before...;):rolleyes:


looking forward to your input...... (try to emphasise the smaller words please :D)

s.
 
Snoopy said:
can you elaborate? how did existence, er, exist without substance???

s.
Click to expand...

As heidegger wants to demolish cartesian substance dualism ie that there are two kinds of substance, mental and matter, which sets up the object/subject dichotomy. The Aristotelian definition of substance as 'being' goes way back as atomistic, bits of matter, self sufficient entities [comprised as form and matter] in which properties inhere in. Heidegger wants existence to be only applied to human beings, or rather their way of being, so trees don't exist, G#d doesn't exist in his definition of existence.

He has three modes of being, presence to hand, which is the way of being of substances, eg a tree, or G#d if you believe in that [as a presence to yourself], readiness to hand, which is the way of being of equipment, and existence, which is our way of being, as that which makes a stand in their being, makes an issue [which for eg animals don't, concern themselves with themselves]. lt's important to note these modes are holistic and interdependent, unlike the atomistic model, and it is only dasein that takes a stand on what it is to be that kind of being, and makes intelligible the other modes. So for instance by the time a baby is a few weeks old it already has a style of being of that particular culture, which becomes so pervasive it is hidden [eg ideas of male and masculine in different cultures]. He is saying everything is already interpreted and you cannot step outside it in some theoretical sense though you can attempt it, like science does, as a view from 'nowhere'.

Apparently behind all the existentialists, according to Bert Dreyfuss, is the Frenchman Pascal who said 'custom is our nature', and so no 'right' way to be, no inherent nature, but one we build up through facticity of where we are at 'in the world' and how we envisage it, by doing, by activity [Heidegger really big on this as the only defining characteristic of Dasein, we take over ourselves and define ourselves through activity and interaction with the other modes in a totally holistic way].

If you want to get into the elusiveness of 'existence' and more on substances!

Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


:eek:
 
Snoopy said:
Much Continental philosophy is a response to a sense of crisis in the modern world. Its most salient difference from much analytical philosophy (essentially the philosophy of the English-speaking world) is its anti-scientism. This stems from the belief that the natural sciences cannot and should not provide humans with their primary and most significant access to the world. Continental philosophy, because of this has also risked conflation with obscurantism. The two extremes in philosophy to be avoided are scientism and obscurantism, whether Continental or analytical.

s.
Click to expand...

Anti-scientism, what kind of philosophy is that :D !! Are you guys a bunch of liberal arts folks, or what :).

Ok, NA, I guess I am going to catch up on my Kierkagaard, Heidegger, Nietzche, Sartre and Husserl. I am going to try to keep up with you on this thread :).

Now, Pascal (viscosity) and Cartesian (coordinates) were scientists and mathematicians as well.

This thread is going to be fun. :D
 
Oops, Pascal was a unit of pressure, Poiseuille was the viscosity guy and a physiologist too. He figured out how much pressure it took to push blood through our veins and arteries :). I don't think he was very philosophical though !!

Now Pascal, on the other hand was a mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher who came up with the following interesting wager:

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Click to expand...
 
Avi said:
Anti-scientism, what kind of philosophy is that :D !! Are you guys a bunch of liberal arts folks, or what :).

Ok, NA, I guess I am going to catch up on my Kierkagaard, Heidegger, Nietzche, Sartre and Husserl. I am going to try to keep up with you on this thread :).

Now, Pascal (viscosity) and Cartesian (coordinates) were scientists and mathematicians as well.

This thread is going to be fun. :D
Click to expand...

Heidegger did maths and physics too, but got interested in the way of being of human beings which he didn't see as separate from the world, set up by descartes; he distinguished between cartesian space and the existential space we inhabit and make meaning of [this thread is gonna need more neurones than l have!].
 
Thanks for your input :)


Dasein
Click to expand...

Today's new word. I thought it was some French philosopher nativeastral. :rolleyes::p


If you want to get into the elusiveness of 'existence' and more on substances!

Substance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


:eek:
Click to expand...

Clearly, I've blown up a catering size can of worms here :eek::eek:

Going to be hard if these philosophers use words in ways other than one might find in the dictionary. They'd fit right in on this forum. :p

s.
 
Avi said:
Anti-scientism, what kind of philosophy is that :D !! Are you guys a bunch of liberal arts folks, or what :).
Click to expand...

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! It was the reason behind this attitude that I found interesting (as you quoted).

Ok, NA, I guess I am going to catch up on my Kierkagaard, Heidegger, Nietzche, Sartre and Husserl. I am going to try to keep up with you on this thread :).
Click to expand...

Yes, you'll be keeping up with nativeastral; I'm in the cheap seats. ;)


This thread is going to be fun. :D
Click to expand...

Hope so! :)

s.
 
Avi said:
Now Pascal, on the other hand was a mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher who came up with the following interesting wager:
Click to expand...

Seen this bandied about a few times on here I think...

s.
 
nativeastral said:
Heidegger did maths and physics too, but got interested in the way of being of human beings which he didn't see as separate from the world, set up by descartes; he distinguished between cartesian space and the existential space we inhabit and make meaning of
Click to expand...

That Descartes has got a lot to answer for!

[this thread is gonna need more neurones than l have!].
Click to expand...

Together we can do it!!!!!

s.
 
Once the dust has settled again, I'll post some more precis from the book. :)

s.
 

The Gap between Knowledge and Wisdom.

For Socrates and nearly all ancient philosophers, philosophy (the love of wisdom) meant the wisdom of how to live a good life. But although it meant examination of life, it also meant that a life needed to be “lived” in order to be examined. So it was both theoretical and practical.
Most modern analytical philosophy has given up on the “good life” wisdom aspect and restricts itself to the theoretical aspect of “knowledge.” This is the knowledge of “how things are.” Unfortunately for philosophy this question is very well addressed by science (the Latin for knowledge is scientia) which can provide empirical proof for the answers it provides. It follows that philosophy is thus left with just the theory of knowledge (epistemology).

However, the scientific conception of the world does not answer the “wisdom question” – what is the meaning of life? So the paradox (the paradox of nihilism) is that the scientific conception does not close the gap between knowledge and wisdom, but in fact makes us feel it all the more. And it is felt the most in scientifically and technologically developed societies. It becomes a veritable abyss: I seem to have everything I need and want but what is the point in my life?

So since the age of the “Enlightenment” (the advance of science) this gap remains - between knowledge and wisdom, truth and meaning, theory and practice, causal explanation and existential understanding. It has divested life of meaning.

What has this to do with Continental philosophy specifically? From the point of view of the “profession” of philosophy, “analytic” philosophy has voluntarily given up on “wisdom” and ceded “knowledge” to science, leaving it marginalised in society and culture. However, Continental philosophy is still concerned with bridging the gap between wisdom and knowledge and keeping them at the heart of “philosophy.” Some of the major contributors include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus.



I think it’s a shame that a philosophical school or approach has such a name as Continental philosophy as no philosophy is defined by or restricted to a particular geographical area. Surely there could be a more appropriate term?

Anyway, I got to the end of the chapter without falling asleep so that’s very promising. And as CP seems to be about addressing the human condition in the modern world I think I’m going to find it very interesting (being an alleged human in the modern world). No more thought experiments where the subject has a pair of eyeballs in a black box and they can only see via a mirror and their brain is kept in a separate room and …

s.
 
Origins of Continental Philosophy: How to get from Kant to German Idealism.

CP begins with the publication of Kant’s critical philosophy in the 1780’s. It led on to key movements and thinkers such as German idealism and romanticism (Hegel, Schopenhauer), Nietzsche, Germanophone phenomenology and existentialism (Husserl, Heidegger), Hegelianism, Hermeneutics, Western Marxism, structuralism, post-modernism and feminism…

Kant is the final great figure common to both analytical and CP and who marks the parting of the ways. Much of the difference between the two stems from his First Critique (Critique of Pure Reason) and Third (Critique of the Power of Judgment).

In the First, he asserts that although we can never know things-in-themselves, the objects of our representations conform to the concepts we have of them sufficient for knowledge. This is Kant’s main contribution to epistemology and, by implication, the philosophy of science (and hence analytical philosophy).

In the Third, he attempts to construct a bridge between understanding (concerned with the knowledge of nature) and reason (the domain of ethics; concerned with freedom). He asserts that judgment is the mediator which can create a unity of theory and practice. This is the route that led to German romanticism and idealism and, arguably, the route of CP ever since.

The use of reason to criticise requires that reason itself be subject to critique. There has to be a meta-critique of critique if the critique is to be legitimate. However, this may lead to total scepticism, ending in nihilism where all is doubted. Nihilism is a term first used as a philosophical concept by Freidrich Jacobi in 1799. Jacobi was at the core of two major philosophical conflicts: the pantheism conflict and the atheism conflict. Nihilism allows for the existence of nothing outside or separate from the ego and its projections. These conflicts anticipate Sartre a century later: a godless, nihilistic world where humans have a passionate freedom to become godlike.

The outcome of the criticism of Kant’s philosophy was a greater questioning of faith in reason. The Kantian dualism between understanding and sensibility required a unifying principle. For Hegel it was Spirit, for Schopenhauer it was the Will, for Nietzsche - Power, Marx - Praxis, for Heidegger – Being…




It takes me a couple or three readings to get my head around some of this stuff. But every time I revisit it, the smoke clears a little more and I can pull out the main points (hopefully!). Is it making sense out here? Any corrections?

And whatever happened to Kant’s Second Critique??!!

s.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top