Book: Continental Philosophy

I'm enjoying the excerpts. Good stuff!

From reading the wiki page on CP I gleaned that the term itself may have been a derogatory one to begin with. I guess the rub between "British" and "Continental" philosophy is mostly political in nature. Continental, it would seem, is mostly a nice name for French, which is code for Marxist. CP didn't become popular with American academia until the late sixties, coincidental with the cultural revolution going on at that time, I suppose. CP is people oriented in that it seeks to effect actual political change through the enlightened reordering of power structures. That's dangerous stuff!

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I'm enjoying the excerpts. Good stuff!
Click to expand...

:)

From reading the wiki page on CP I gleaned that the term itself may have been a derogatory one to begin with. I guess the rub between "British" and "Continental" philosophy is mostly political in nature. Continental, it would seem, is mostly a nice name for French, which is code for Marxist. CP didn't become popular with American academia until the late sixties, coincidental with the cultural revolution going on at that time, I suppose. CP is people oriented in that it seeks to effect actual political change through the enlightened reordering of power structures. That's dangerous stuff!
Chris
Click to expand...
Ha! You've nicely anticipated the next chapter! Bet you can hardly wait...:p

s.
 

Spectacles and Eyes to See With: Two cultures in philosophy.

“Continental philosophy” is a term foisted upon a disparate series of intellectual currents by the Anglo-American hegemony. It would not be seen as legitimate by such thinkers – rather like asking for a Continental breakfast in Paris. It is also problematic to distinguish on the grounds of methodology and geography – rather like classifying cars into front-wheel and Japanese. There remains an intellectual abyss between analytical and CP which derives from cultural stereotyping, politics and language; a divide which may seem intellectually cowardly and prevent a true dialogue to meet the intellectual challenges of “philosophy” per se.

Critchley contends that (for the British at least) the word “continental” suggests foreign, exotic and strange. He goes on to make two claims regarding the historical meaning of CP. The first is that it is a professional self-description, a means of dividing up philosophy departments. It first appeared in the US in the 70’s and then the UK in the 80’s (where it largely replaced terms such as Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy). In the English-speaking world, CP has had a far wider influence outside of professional philosophy (in the social sciences, the arts, anthropology etc). Critchley’s second claim is the distinction is based on the ideological prejudices of political geography, with Britain and the English speaking world on one side and the European Continent on the other.

To examine such a distinction it is illuminating to consider two essays by John Stuart Mill in 1832 and 1840, on Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Mills thinks that Bentham is concerned with truth (and therefore knowledge) whereas Coleridge (influenced by ‘Continental philosophers’) is concerned with meaning (and therefore wisdom). Bentham was critically destructive, a reformer and concerned with progress. Coleridge was hermeneutically reconstructive, a social conservative and a traditionalist. The differing attitude to change is contrary to the stereotype one thinks of when comparing analytical and Continental philosophers. But it should not be viewed as a question of “who is right?” – the whole truth requires both approaches, the empirical-scientific of analytical philosophy and the hermeneutic-romantic of CP – or as Mill put it: “I believe in spectacles, but I think eyes are necessary too.”

A fine example of this disingenuous separation occurred at the weekend when I was in a bookshop. Although I’ve already read (and been bored by) a couple of introductory books on (as it turns out, analytical) philosophy, I picked one up called Introduction to Philosophy. Now, armed with my current reading, I was interested to see just exactly what this supposedly generalist introduction to the topic of philosophy would contain. And what a surprise; there was just one chapter called “Continental Philosophy”; that started off with something along the lines of “Oh and there’s this other stuff over on the mainland Continent…” So in fact, as I suspected, this book should not have been called Introduction to Philosophy, it should have been called Introduction to Analytical Philosophy (with one derisory sop to Continental).

Very disingenuous, IMHO.

s.
 
Can Philosophy Change the World? Critique, praxis, emancipation.

CP asks that we evaluate the world critically in order to effect a transformation, either personally or collectively. CP approaches problems contextually and textually and so this also makes history fundamental to the approach. Problems do not fall into a philosophers’ lap for consideration, they arise as a result of past events.

Since our situation is ”embedded” in history, this leads to the demand that “things be different”; a struggle for emancipation. Our experience is a contingent situation and so can be made otherwise. This was expressed by Rousseau thus – “Man was born free, but is everywhere in chains.”

Praxis is the touchstone of CP: our historically and culturally embedded life is of our own making. Thus, we can critique it, in order that we deliver emancipation. This endeavour for emancipation, for transformation appears in many areas of life, whether art, thinking, politics, or philosophy. Before we transform ourselves we are, in a sense, in crisis. We may not be aware of this (Crisis? What crisis?) though and it is a role of the philosopher to precipitate the awareness of crisis in order to demand the transformation to a better life.




After the scene setting of the first few chapters Critchley has now started to lay out the driving force behind CP. It seems the sense of crisis in society is the common denominator. This seems a world away from analytical philosophy and its thought experiments. It almost seems to me that CP and analytical philosophy are two different entities altogether, as if English Literature and Economic Geography were conflated with a same or similar title. Curious…

s.
 
c0de said:
.
(which I hope he keeps posting).
Click to expand...

I will, now that I know I'm not talking to myself :p

Just read the next chapter and it's given me a headache (doesn't take much though...)

s.
 
OK I've just read the next chapter and if only to provoke a response...:rolleyes:

A couple of things, both regarding Nietzsche.

Firstly, there is a photo of him standing proudly in military uniform.

Secondly, there is this quote from the book:

"...Nietzsche identifies as nihilism and which he detects in three nascent forms:

1. In the pessimism of Schopenhauer, which Nietzsche calls 'passive nihilism' or, more injuriously, 'European Buddhism'. That is, if there is a void at the heart of my former metaphysical beliefs, then I might as well affirm the void and take up yoga, origami, or whatever."

Anyone that knows Snoopy a little bit will perhaps understand when I say I'm getting the word "knob." On this basis I'd put more credence in the bilge of theosophy.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
OK I've just read the next chapter and if only to provoke a response...:rolleyes:

A couple of things, both regarding Nietzsche.

Firstly, there is a photo of him standing proudly in military uniform.

Secondly, there is this quote from the book:

"...Nietzsche identifies as nihilism and which he detects in three nascent forms:

1. In the pessimism of Schopenhauer, which Nietzsche calls 'passive nihilism' or, more injuriously, 'European Buddhism'. That is, if there is a void at the heart of my former metaphysical beliefs, then I might as well affirm the void and take up yoga, origami, or whatever."

Anyone that knows Snoopy a little bit will perhaps understand when I say I'm getting the word "knob." On this basis I'd put more credence in the bilge of theosophy.

s.
Click to expand...
Yep. It brings back to mind this part you quoted earlier:
There remains an intellectual abyss between analytical and CP which derives from cultural stereotyping, politics and language; a divide which may seem intellectually cowardly and prevent a true dialogue to meet the intellectual challenges of “philosophy” per se.
​
Perhaps a book on origami might be a bit more enjoyable? :rolleyes:
 
Snoopy said:
Anyone that knows Snoopy a little bit will perhaps understand when I say I'm getting the word "knob." On this basis I'd put more credence in the bilge of theosophy.

s.
Click to expand...

Here is a different flavor on Nietzsche:

Friedrich Nietzsche (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And SEP is a pretty reliable source.

The connection to Nazism is mentioned in section 7 of this article, but it looks pretty tenuous to me.

It seems to me that his focus was more on anti - Judeo-Christianity and that was twisted by the Nazis for their goals. Different issue from Theosophy which is more focused on the principle of racial superiority.

I am not giving Nietzsche a free pass on this, he is just in a different league than the Madame.

On the other hand, his sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, as I believe NA pointed out, looks like she was in the same league as Madame.
 
Hi Avi,

As is typical with me, you have to be a bit of a mind reader to get what I was really meaning. :(
...but you also seem to have presumed a little something that I hadn't said?...

Avi said:
The connection to Nazism is mentioned in section 7 of this article, but it looks pretty tenuous to me.
Click to expand...

I hadn't mentioned Nazism in my post. Is it the uniform that you picked up on? (for Snoopy the colour of the uniform doesn't matter. It's a military uniform. End of.)

Different issue from Theosophy which is more focused on the principle of racial superiority. I am not giving Nietzsche a free pass on this, he is just in a different league than the Madame.
Click to expand...
I didn't say theosophy because of a similar grubby involvement with racism, I used the comparison cos, for Snoopy, theosophy is the gold standard benchmark for bo11ocks. Although actually the quote I gave about "European Buddhism" strongly suggested the same misunderstanding / ignorance / misappropriation of an Eastern philosophy / religion as the mad-am managed.

As to what Nietzsche actually was about (as per my little primer) I'll get to this when I can. But I'm sure he's in a different league to the charlaton. But then who isn't.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi Avi,

As is typical with me, you have to be a bit of a mind reader to get what I was really meaning. :(
...but you also seem to have presumed a little something that I hadn't said?...
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry about that Snoopy, it looks like I was carrying over a little bad karma from the Theosophy thread (see Nick taught me a little about bad karma :eek:)

I hadn't mentioned Nazism in my post. So..er...? (for Snoopy the colour of the military uniform doesn't matter. It's a military uniform. End of.
Is that what you picked up on?)
Click to expand...

No, I was thinking back to the Theosophy thread where NA had mentioned Nietzsche's work within the context of the Ubermensch. Initially I had thought that Nietzsche was also an inspiration for Nazism, but after reading more about him and thinking further I think he was a much more significant person.

Quote Avi:
Different issue from Theosophy which is more focused on the principle of racial superiority. I am not giving Nietzsche a free pass on this, he is just in a different league than the Madame.
Click to expand...

I didn't say theosophy because of a similar grubby involvement with racism, I used the comparison cos, for Snoopy, theosophy is the gold standard benchmark for bo11ocks.
Click to expand...
Yes, I gathered that from an earlier post of yours.



As to what Nietzsche actually was about (as per my little primer) I'll get to this when I can. But I'm sure he's in a different league to the charlaton. But then who isn't.
Click to expand...
Um, Hitler, Goebbles, Goring and apparently Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche (Nietzsche's sister).

But I do not want to divert this nice thread any further. I think it will be interesting to learn about Nietzsche's contributions as an existentialist, not those twisted for political motivation.
 
Avi said:
Um, Hitler, Goebbles, Goring and apparently Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche (Nietzsche's sister).
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was a throw-away remark.:eek:

But I do not want to divert this nice thread any further. I think it will be interesting to learn about Nietzsche's contributions as an existentialist, not those twisted for political motivation.
Click to expand...

Well the next chapter is about nihilism and "what to do", especially on Nietzsche. Jolly interesting I found it too.

Just kind of pushed for time at the mo and I want to concoct a good precis, which takes time. So yes, let's keep it a nice thread :)

s.
 
What is to be Done? How to respond to nihilism

Kant raises the question how can we be free in a world that is mechanistically governed by causality? This is the problem Nietzsche diagnoses with the concept of nihilism: the recognition that freedom goes hand in hand with the collapse of moral certainty. He picked up the concept from the Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev. The Russian “version” of nihilism has a more socio-political dimension (hence Chernyshevski’s influential radical socialist novel What is to be done? – also the title of Lenin’s book on the dictatorship of the proletariat). Russian nihilism is sceptical, anti-aesthetic, utilitarian and scientistic. The German “version” is largely metaphysical.

For Nietzsche, nihilism means “that the highest values devalue themselves” (from The Will to Power). Thus it is not criticism that makes values collapse but the values themselves. Similarly, his famous quote “God is dead” does not mean that God has expired, it means that we have killed God. Nihilism is the breakdown of the order of meaning. Life, therefore, has no meaning.

He sees the cause of nihilism to be Christianity. Although it seems to be an antidote to nihilism in that it grants life meaning, Christianity is supposedly based upon a will to truth - which ultimately, with the death of God, finds that the Christian view of the world is untrue. Thus, Christianity finds itself untrue.

CP is concerned with a call for things to be different. Hence, the diagnosis of nihilism is followed by an attempt to transform and create a new way of being in the world. For Nietzsche, it was ‘existence as it is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness’ - his doctrine of ‘eternal return.’

Nihilism grew from the recognition that the values of the Enlightenment have led to the dissolution of meaning in everyday life. This is the core of what CP grapples with. It is also why CP does not just “live” in philosophy departments but is out in the real world of everyday life – such as in politics, arts or economics.

Two different traditions of concern with the modern crisis exist today: progressive and reactionary modernism. Progressive modernism believes in a reciprocal arrangement between sociology and philosophy and is expressed in various leftist currents, whether Marxist or social democrat. Reactionary modernism rejects sociology as an expression of decadence. The political expression of reactionary modernism has unfortunately so far been seen (for example) in the likes of Heidegger’s commitment to National Socialism.

Although these two traditions are opposed politically, they are the same (from a CP POV) in that they see the need to respond to the problem of nihilism, to show that we are in crisis and that things should be different - for the emancipation of individuals and / or society. How this is to be achieved and what it consists of – here they differ utterly of course.


A thought:

If Russian nihilism is scientistic, how does this square with nihilism arising from the recognition of the “playing out” of the values of the Enlightenment in everyday life?

s.
 
perhaps russian nihilism was no more or less scientistic than other european countries but only came across as such due to their 'civilisation' being more backward [ie extreme poverty/predominant aristocracy/lack of technology comparable to others?]; not sure how powerful the church was in that country at that time compared to other european countries either, lots of variables...

found a good nihilist site called ANUS!!

[ American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) :: Nihilism ] Parallelism: Love and Nihilism, a primer
 
sheesh sorry snoop didn't realise how long that was till l just scanned it again!
but yeh heidegger is positing the danger of calculative thinking, the rational autonomy of Kant and enlightenment, the natural sequence of events from greek philosophy [reason as king and the ignoring of the understanding of being]; a world of perfectly ordered societies where humans themselves become 'a resource to be used and enhanced like any other..as standing reserve'. His solution is not to let these totalizing kinds of practices [already as a background embedded] become the only kind of thinking but by 'finding some set of shared meaningful concerns that can give our culture a new focus', which was for him keeping meditative thinking alive and fostering human receptivity the way an artist does pragmatically. His mistake[?] was, contrasted to Neitzsche's subjectivist individualism, in thinking 'only a god can save us now' [hence his idealism towards early nazism].

here is an article from a forum that sets out well heidegger/neitzsche differences Nietzsche Forum • View topic - Heidegger

and heideggers poetic attitude to technology heidegger concerning technology and The Question Concerning Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


[btw l find his jargon difficult too!]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top