Topic talk:Continental philosophy

Continental
I have a problem with the name continental. In my country, the Netherlands, the discipline of philosophy is not divided into continental and non-continental philosophy. It seems like a typical name used in a certain specified region, which doesn't sound very global. English is a language used globally in every country on earth. It is the dominant language in the United Nations and on the internet. Could it be possible to have more neutral terms to describe the different departments within the school of philosophy? For instance by splitting this department into marxist philosophy and postmodern philosophy.--Daanschr 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Continental philosophy" along with "analytic philosophy" is discussed right near the start of the English language Wikipedia article abut philosophy. There are over 5000 google scholar hits for "continental philosophy". Speaking as a biologist with an interest in philosophy, "continental philosophy" is a term that I have found to be quite commonly used by English speaking philosophers. I doubt if it makes sense for Wikiversity to put limits on use of the term. There is already a red link at School:Philosophy for marxist philosophy (3,190 on the google scholar hit meter) and postmodern philosophy (1,470 google scholar hits) can be added. I think all "Topic:" pages should be viewed as "educational content development projects". Each Wikiversity "Topic:" provides a place for Wikiversity participants who are interested in the topic to coordinate their efforts that are related to the development of learning resources related to that topic. --JWSchmidt 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A problem is that this term could pose problems in interlingual cooperation, since it is not used in other languages. But perhaps we should make distinctions between the schools from different languages.--Daanschr 09:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Daanschr, you are right about the problems with the term Continental Philosophy and the confusion it might course. It can be argued that all labels and divisions in philosophy are arbitrary and artificial. However for better or worse it is a term widely used in the English speaking world of academia. " Continental Philosophy" and " Analytical Philosophy" are widely used term used to make a distinction between two major trends in 20th century western philosophy. If you needed to translate this division into another culture then the terms "Analytical Philosophy" and "Non Analytical Philosophy" would be a possible distinction. The term continental philosophy isn't a geographical distinction but a methodological one in being distinct from analytical philosophy. Continental philosophy is a category that covers a range of approaches including phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism, deconstruction, French feminism, critical theory such as that of the Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis, the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard, and most branches of Marxism and Marxist philosophy (though there also exists a self-described Analytical Marxism). I Hopes this helps clarify why this term has been used. Mystictim 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with the word continental has mainly to do with the books that i am reading for my final paper on the description of John Stuart Mill. Some Anglo-Saxon writers say that Mill rules in Britain and the USA and Nietzsche on the continent and that people should choose Mill.
 * Analytical philosophy is different from the philosophy of Mill. Mill is somewhere in between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. I have the impression that the difference between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy doesn't exist in my country, the Netherlands. I read a Dutch book about contemporary philosophy, which included 25 philosophers of the last century, who were ranked from the date of birth, thereby losing the division between analytical and continental completely. The Wikipedia articles doesn't make it very clear what the distinction is between the two. Perhaps it is between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism? This question is important for my final paper, although i will not mention the difference between analytical and continental philosophy.--Daanschr 11:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a striking difference between the English and Dutch Wikipedia on contemporary philosophers. The English Wikipedia has a clear distinction between continentalists and analytical philosophy, but without mentioning the name continental. The Dutch article only gives a list of names without classification. But the introduction of the Dutch article doesn't mention analytical philosophy. It only mentions elements which seem to belong to continental philosophy. The German article gives a distinction between German, French-Italian and Anglo-Saxon. So, postmodernism becomes something French and not German. The French article mentions the analytical philosophy first and then the phenomenology. Foucault and Derrida didn't call themselves postmodernists, so that is not a surprise. A surprise is that the Anglo-Saxons are mentioned first, but the article is very small (which could be regarded as another surprise since the French philosophers have had a major impact on the world). The Russians give a distinction between analytical and continental philosophy.--Daanschr 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Daanschr, your research has shown some fascinating differences in the categorisations of contemporary philosophy on different language Wikipedias. It would be interesting to see if these differences show up between other philosophy websites written in different languages. I wonder what the differences are in how Universities from different countries divide up contemporary philosophies. This needs further investigation but it appears that the sites in each language divide contemporary philosophy according to the contributions made by native speakers. Hence the German Wikipedia makes a distinction between German philosophy, French-Italian Philosophy and Anglo-Saxon (Analytical). The French site makes a distinction between Analytical (Anglo-Saxon) and Phenomenology (French). The Dutch site is a model of objectivity with a list of philosophers by date of birth. The English speaking site distinguishes between Analytical (Anglo-Saxon) and Philosophers of the phenomenological, structuralist and post-structuralist schools (Continental). It appears that their is no single definition for the category Continental philosophy. This is hardly surprising considering the diversity and often contradictory approaches to philosophy that Continental philosophy is used to cover. These various approaches differ as much from each other as they do from Analytical philosophy. Continental philosophy appears to be a term used in the Anglo-Saxon (Analytical) philosophical tradition to make a distinction between Analytical philosophy and other contemporary philosophies. Analytical and Continental philosophy are used to catogories 20th century philosophers and philosophies I'm not sure how useful these terms are for philosophers from other periods. I'm guessing that Analytical philosophers might count John Stuart Mill as one of their predecessors were as many of the philosophers classed under Continental philosophy would see themselves as breaking away from the tradition that Mill represents. Mystictim 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the main difference between the analytical and the continental school is that the analytical school wants to protect civilization, while the continental school is sceptical on the value and reality of civilization.
 * Bertrand Russel seems to be the founder of the analytical school. He was a defender of science within the context of a liberal society. Other representatives of the analytical school are defenders of certain kinds of morality.
 * Two main segments of the continental school are marxism and postmodernism. Marxists want to change society for the good, which includes the destruction of barriers set up by conservative elites (including members of the analytical school of philosophy) who want to prevent the end of oppression. Marxism has waned considerably. Postmodernism seems to be popular at the moment. Nietzsche, the godfather of postmodernism saw enlightenment and religion as illusions. The light promised by science and religion does not exist according to Nietzsche. Just like the marxists, the postmodernists are in favour of destruction, not to create a new better society, but to make individuals free from society. Allthough the individual is an illusion as well according to Nietzsche. The word destruction is not well chosen, because that what doesn't exist can't be destroyed. Postmodernism is full of contradictions. Contradictions are good according to Nietzsche because unity is an illusion as well.
 * It is pretty bizare that postmodernism is taught at universities as a philosophy. Nietzsche was against philosophy and against study. He wanted people to say yes to live, to create instead of to learn. And now many learn about the 'philosopher' Nietzsche. Foucault didn't regard himself as a philosopher as well, he called himself a historian, studying the history of ideas.--Daanschr 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)