Continental, Analytic, Both, Neither?

[Happydays2]

I believe this question has the capacity for being, both, quite simple and quite complex. My question is: to all others applying or those already admitted, how did you choose to go continental or analytic (or for those still applying, did you decided to apply to both)? I'm curious because, if I'm completely honest, my choosing to go continental was, more or less, random.

 

Upon honest self-reflection, here is how it happened that I went continental: my university's department is mostly continental and it just so happened that the two analytic professors we have are so busy with their administrative duties that the classes I took with them suffered as a result. In other words, the classes I took that align with continental camp happened to be more interesting (both because of the subject matter and because of professors who have the time and to make these classes wonderful). So, yes, I love studying the philosophies/philosophers who are typically classified as continental, however, I do feel as though I wasn't really exposed to much analytic philosophy in my undergraduate training. I have tried exploring analytic philosophy on my own, and I think I've chosen well by applying continental. However, I do wonder if I would think differently after learning under someone who is an expert in the field.

 

Does anyone else feel they were formally educated only one way or another? Does anyone feel as though they had equal exposure to both? If so, how did you choose? If you say "the philosophers who fall under X camp have inspired me," please be specific.

 

Lastly, there is the add complication that a few articles I have read seem to imply a near ending of this divide in American departments (which, if true, I would be in favor of).

 

All comments welcome, and feel free to comment on any issue I've raised or anything on the matter of continental/analytic philosophy

[gatewayselect]

I believe this question has the capacity for being, both, quite simple and quite complex. My question is: to all others applying or those already admitted, how did you choose to go continental or analytic (or for those still applying, did you decided to apply to both)? I'm curious because, if I'm completely honest, my choosing to go continental was, more or less, random.

 

Upon honest self-reflection, here is how it happened that I went continental: my university's department is mostly continental and it just so happened that the two analytic professors we have are so busy with their administrative duties that the classes I took with them suffered as a result. In other words, the classes I took that align with continental camp happened to be more interesting (both because of the subject matter and because of professors who have the time and to make these classes wonderful). So, yes, I love studying the philosophies/philosophers who are typically classified as continental, however, I do feel as though I wasn't really exposed to much analytic philosophy in my undergraduate training. I have tried exploring analytic philosophy on my own, and I think I've chosen well by applying continental. However, I do wonder if I would think differently after learning under someone who is an expert in the field.

 

Does anyone else feel they were formally educated only one way or another? Does anyone feel as though they had equal exposure to both? If so, how did you choose? If you say "the philosophers who fall under X camp have inspired me," please be specific.

 

Lastly, there is the add complication that a few articles I have read seem to imply a near ending of this divide in American departments (which, if true, I would be in favor of).

 

All comments welcome, and feel free to comment on any issue I've raised or anything on the matter of continental/analytic philosophy

 

My undergraduate school was pluralistic, so I got an introduction to both sides. That said, I went into undergraduate already wanting to do continental philosophy. However, by the time of my graduation, I had corrected my sinful ways and chose the One True Philosophy which is analytic philosophy. The rest, as they say, is history.

[MattDest]

I got some introduction to both during my undergrad (at least as far as I understand what is meant by this divide), but I've always been more interested in philosophy that is widely considered analytic. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

I think Leiter's remarks on this would be useful. Here's a link: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.asp

In essence he says that it's best to study continental philosophy at analytic programs that have people working in those traditions. I say apply to schools that do both, like he suggests, that way you allow yourself to experience both. I know Chicago is considered one of hte top programs for continental and analytic philosophy. So why pick when you can do both?

[ancientatcontinental]

http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/12/2011-pgr-20th-c-cp-board.html

http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/17/manufactured-assent-the-philosophical-gourmet-reports-sampling-problem/

http://web.missouri.edu/~ernstz/Home_files/emperor-1.pdf

 

I think Leiter's opinions should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to continental philosophy.  Places like chicago are definitely 'pluralistic', and some continental does get done there (although with any program, you need to be more specific - can you study Hegel or Nietzsche at Chicago?  Yes.  Is it the best place to study Irigaray or Deleuze?  I am tempted to say not at all).  But Leiter dislikes SPEP and anything associated with it (honestly, SPEP is filled with bad philosophy, but there is great stuff there too) even though it's the political and professional center for continental philosophy.  There's a lot more that can be said, but it's a mistake to think the gourmet and Leiter are in representative of the graduate environment.  They might be helpful at giving you a sense of schools, but you need to consider what you are really interested in, look at faculty at schools, talk to students, etc. etc.  If you want to study Hegel, you might apply to Pitt and Georgetown, but you probably should also consider Depaul, Duquesne, and NSSR.  If you want to study Foucault, then you'll have a new list.  Early Modern?  There are some great scholars for that in analytic, continental, and pluralistic programs alike.  Etc...

 

background: I am ABD at a continental school.  I work on ancient.  I have taken graduate courses at analytic departments.  I have presented papers at all sorts of places (spep, analytic depts, ancient phil places). Etc.

[bar_scene_gambler]

I just sort of fell into continental philsoophy before I knew of its existence. We had philosophy courses at my high school, and so I took the equivalent of an introduction to philosophy before I entered college, but they never taught us about the analytic/continental distinction. I fell in love with Nietzsche, and the rest is sort of history. The university I'm currently attending has great faculty who work in both areas, and they're all open-minded, so there's not much in the way of fighting over the distinction, so they just sort of let me develop. To be frank, I'm interested in things outside of continental philosophy as well, it's just not my main area of interest.

[maxhgns]

I did my UG at a small department that focused exclusively on the history of philosophy. The closest to anything contemporary that we did was Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. And one year there was a single class on logicism. I knew that this wasn't representative of all philosophy, and I wanted exposure to whatever the other stuff was (even though I had no idea). So the MA schools I chose (up here, MAs are the norm) were all either quite analytic or had strong analytic sides. The one I went to was purely analytic, and focused on applied ethics and political philosophy (TBH, I had no idea at the time). I learned a great deal, but was also overwhelmed by the methodological and terminological differences.

 

For my PhD I tried to apply to well-rounded departments, although I'm  now pretty much exclusively analytic (with some small historical AOCs).

[greencoloredpencil]

I'm only interested in analytic philosophy. I'm just not interested by continental at all. Maybe since I stumbled upon philosophy as a math major first my interests are rather specific. I also went to a very analytic program for undergrad, but by choice (in fact I was originally at an analytic school and then transferred to an even more analytic one). 

[wandajune]

My undergraduate professors all have a strong analytic bent, so I haven't had much exposure to continental philosophy. I'm trying to apply to well-rounded programs, avoiding any that are solely known for being continental. 

[ZiggyPhil]

My conception of what philosophy as a discipline was was largely the continental tradition (including of course the ancients and early moderns that are embraced to some extent by both traditions).  As someone who had never really studied it, philosophy was for me characterized by the likes of Plato and Nietzsche, and I wasn't particularly interested in that stuff.  I took an intro ethics course late in my (first) college career, and loved it, but thought it was too late to change directions. 

 

After graduating I was listening to a lot of courses that are available free from the likes of Yale and Berkeley (which are awesome by the way if you have broad interests), and stumbled across John Searle's Philosophy of Language class.  I was blown away.  I never knew philosophy was anything like this, and I've been all-analytic since.  Went back to do an undergrad phil degree, and now I'm in an M.A. program.

 

I avoided continental stuff in my second undergrad, but I just finished my first continental seminar, and I'm sure I made the right choice.  We read Nietzsche and Foucault and some others, and while there was some interesting stuff there (mostly in Foucault), it doesn't grab me the same way analytic does, and I can't stand the writing style.  I may dip into it from time to time (like I said, I have wide academic interests), but it's not something I want to devote a significant part of my life to studying.

 

I'm not sure I buy this idea that the distinction between these schools is breaking down.  My department is quite pluralistic - we've got a couple analytic people, a couple continental people, a couple who do applied ethics (which I sort of think of as outside either of those two, but I'm not all that familiar with the field, so I could be wrong), a eastern phil prof, a christian phil prof, a phil of race prof, etc.  Still, I get a bit frustrated with the way philosophy is done in my continental seminar, and the continentally oriented students get a bit frustrated with what we're doing in the analytic seminar.  There are of course going to be people who like both, but my admittedly small sample leads me to think that's a minority.

 

 

[Billy Goehring]

My conception of what philosophy as a discipline was was largely the continental tradition (including of course the ancients and early moderns that are embraced to some extent by both traditions).  As someone who had never really studied it, philosophy was for me characterized by the likes of Plato and Nietzsche, and I wasn't particularly interested in that stuff.  I took an intro ethics course late in my (first) college career, and loved it, but thought it was too late to change directions. 

 

After graduating I was listening to a lot of courses that are available free from the likes of Yale and Berkeley (which are awesome by the way if you have broad interests), and stumbled across John Searle's Philosophy of Language class.  I was blown away.  I never knew philosophy was anything like this, and I've been all-analytic since.  Went back to do an undergrad phil degree, and now I'm in an M.A. program.

 

I avoided continental stuff in my second undergrad, but I just finished my first continental seminar, and I'm sure I made the right choice.  We read Nietzsche and Foucault and some others, and while there was some interesting stuff there (mostly in Foucault), it doesn't grab me the same way analytic does, and I can't stand the writing style.  I may dip into it from time to time (like I said, I have wide academic interests), but it's not something I want to devote a significant part of my life to studying.

 

I'm not sure I buy this idea that the distinction between these schools is breaking down.  My department is quite pluralistic - we've got a couple analytic people, a couple continental people, a couple who do applied ethics (which I sort of think of as outside either of those two, but I'm not all that familiar with the field, so I could be wrong), a eastern phil prof, a christian phil prof, a phil of race prof, etc.  Still, I get a bit frustrated with the way philosophy is done in my continental seminar, and the continentally oriented students get a bit frustrated with what we're doing in the analytic seminar.  There are of course going to be people who like both, but my admittedly small sample leads me to think that's a minority.

 

I second that. I'm continental through and through. I'm in my first year of a PhD in a department that's trying to become more pluralistic. My cohort is pretty much split down the middle vis-à-vis the analytic/continental divide, and the difference is very real. Our questions are different, our references are different, our methodologies are different, etc. They complain about the continental courses and we complain about the analytic courses. The more analytic-leaning students tell me that there is no divide. That philosophers today aren't continental or analytic--that we're all just "doing philosophy."

 

"Well, what about people like Zizek or Badiou?"

"Ah, well--that's different. Those aren't philosophers."

 

No divide. Right. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

"Well, what about people like Zizek or Badiou?"

"Ah, well--that's different. Those aren't philosophers."

 

No divide. Right. 

Zizek is a philosopher he just sucks.

Sorry couldn't resit...   (my name is a reference to another forum that I just used here, I don't really care about zizek)

But I do want to second Ziggyphil - before I started undergrad I was interested in philosophy, mostly in history stuff but some continental, because thats what wikipedia had about philosophy and thats what was in the 'philosophy' section of the bookstore. It wasn't until at school that I took a few classes and found real analytic philosophy, and now I can't really read contemporary/semi-contemporary continental philosophy. I'm not interested in the questions, and I can't stand the fact that they can't write clearly and use simple language. I like the way analytic philosophers focus on clear problems, and are more interested in presenting arguments and using rational discourse. So now I'm 100% analytic, with no regrets.

[lesage13]

"Well, what about people like Zizek or Badiou?"

"Ah, well--that's different. Those aren't philosophers."

 

No divide. Right. 

 

This isn't a 'divide' thing. This is a basic intellectual merit thing. Badiou's and Zizek's political theories are garbage and do not deserve the label 'philosophy'. I'm no Rawlsian liberal, but their fetishization of Maoism is just offensive. Really, it amounts to little more than old white men celebrating an intellectually fashionable ideology that caused the deaths of millions of non-whites. John Gray has an excellent takedown of Zizek's nonsense here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/. I think much of it applies to Badiou as well. There is a response from Zizek (http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1046-not-less-than-nothing-but-simply-nothing) to the effect that he's been misunderstood, but if Gray misread him, it's because his writing is obtuse and relies on stupid equivocations (Serously? 'Violence' in the sense that Gandhi was more 'violent' than Hitter?). And does he really expect his critics to have read his entire corpus before they can register a complaint? That's certainly one way to deal with possible objections: Produce more nonsense than your critics can realistically read, so you can always say that they failed interpret your claims in light of your entire body of work. Maybe Badiou's non-political work is better and makes him worthy of the label, but it certainly won't be because of his writings on politics. Zizek is not a 'philosopher' in any serious sense.

[Billy Goehring]

This isn't a 'divide' thing. This is a basic intellectual merit thing. Badiou's and Zizek's political theories are garbage and do not deserve the label 'philosophy'. I'm no Rawlsian liberal, but their fetishization of Maoism is just offensive. Really, it amounts to little more than old white men celebrating an intellectually fashionable ideology that caused the deaths of millions of non-whites. John Gray has an excellent takedown of Zizek's nonsense here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/. I think much of it applies to Badiou as well. There is a response from Zizek (http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1046-not-less-than-nothing-but-simply-nothing) to the effect that he's been misunderstood, but if Gray misread him, it's because his writing is obtuse and relies on stupid equivocations (Serously? 'Violence' in the sense that Gandhi was more 'violent' than Hitter?). And does he really expect his critics to have read his entire corpus before they can register a complaint? That's certainly one way to deal with possible objections: Produce more nonsense than your critics can realistically read, so you can always say that they failed interpret your claims in light of your entire body of work. Maybe Badiou's non-political work is better and makes him worthy of the label, but it certainly won't be because of his writings on politics. Zizek is not a 'philosopher' in any serious sense.

 

Ok. Ok. One, Zizek and Badiou were just examples: I'm not here trying to spread the good word of Zizek; I'm not specializing in Zizek studies.

 

But I do think you've made my point rather well. There are plenty of us who don't think Zizek (but again, feel free to fill in the blank here--Derrida, Deleuze, Sloterdijk, etc) is obtuse, that his work is not garbage, that people like John gray have misunderstood him. He uses references we understand, makes conclusions we can accept or reject--if there are times when he is hard to understand, we do take issue with him, but we don't automatically strike everything out as garbage or nonsense. But perhaps Zizek is a bad example; after all, very few actually work on Zizek. The point stands: from my perspective, I might be inclined to say that Rawls is absolute garbage: however, the difference is that I recognize that his work is perfectly legitimate as part of a certain way of doing philosophy (it may not be how I do political philosophy, but to each their own). 

 

Moreover, what was your point? That because they're Maoist, Zizek and Badiou can't be philosophers? Because they're difficult ("obtuse")? And believe it or not, you don't have to read Zizek's entire corpus to interpret his "stupid equivocations" when it comes to praising violence or anti-semitism--in fact, I've found that if someone quotes him making these stupid equivocations, one can just read a few lines above or below the cited portion to clear things up. 

 

You say that Zizek is not a 'philosopher' in any serious sense. But by this you mean to say, "There isn't a divide! There's just serious philosophy on the hand (e.g. cognitive science, analytic, etc) and not-so-serious philosophy on the other (Zizek, et al)." That is a divide. 

[lesage13]

The point wasn't that there isn't a divide; just that Zizek and, to a lesser extent, Badiou are often dismissed because their political writings lack merit and are needlessly obtuse as opposed to genuinely difficult (a qualification that I didn't think needed to be made, since it is connoted by 'obtuse', but here we are), rather than, as you suggested, because of the existence of some kind of divide within philosophy (a point that I take no stance on). In saying this, I am not dismissing any particular 'way' of doing philosophy. I don't see how this makes your point, unless you're arguing that any dismissal of the merits of Zizek's and Badiou's political work will inveritably be rooted in allegiance to one side of the putative divide.

I cited two reasons to think that Zizek's work lacks merit, which I think also generally applies to Badiou: (1) He fetishises an abhorant ideology that has directly resulted in the deaths of millions of non-whites, and (2) He hides behind stupid equivocations that needlessly obscures his point. Nothing you've said rebuts either (1) or (2), and you haven't really pointed to any further mitigating consideration in their favour. His use of 'violence' is rather stupid, especially if he 'clears it up' in the preceding or following lines. Nothing is gained by the use of the term in this way other than possibly provoking a rise out of the reader--it's a cheap rhetorical trick at best. And of course you can be a maoist and a philosopher, provided that you've made other substantial contributions to the discipline--but maoism is no more a philosophy than Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

[Cottagecheeseman]

http://i.imgur.com/Je3OP.gif