A Word on Analytic and Continental Philosophy


I've described myself as a polyphonic thinker. What others may think of this, I'm not sure, but I like to think of it in this way: to be a polyphonic thinker is to draw one's reflections and ideas from a number of different resources. I propose that it is a good thing to learn to look at ideas and beliefs from a number of different angles and to use different kinds of tools in approaching a problem. Thus, when it comes to contemporary philosophy, I believe that it is good to think about issues from both of the "so-called" competing schools of thought, analytic and continental philosophy.

To grossly oversimplify, analytic philosophy is predominant among English-speaking philosophers and focuses on logically analyzing words and concepts, breaking down their meanings to their core components. Analytical philosophy strives to be very precise and very clear about its subject matter.

Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is predominant on continental Europe and focuses on synthesizing otherwise opposing views into a comprehensive understanding of the self and that which lies outside of the self. Continental philosophy strives to move the listener through expressing a unique vision of the world, rather than by rigorously arguing point by point.

Again, these descriptions are more like stereotypes than accurate depictions of the philosophers within the schools. But these serve the purpose in helping to understand why these very different ways of doing philosophy often clash with one another.

I believe it is important to be philosophically bi-lingual, that is, to be able to read and speak the languages of both of these traditions, in order to gather what is valuable from each of them. Each tradition has its virtues and vices. But if we can utilize the strengths from both traditions, we may just be able to achieve an advance in our understanding.