..
Basically, what Geraldine (and other analytic students) need to do is to
realize that continental philosophers do not function under the same
categories as analytic philosophers. Also, they have quite different
concerns and goals. The terms relativism, epistemology, metaphysics,
Truth, and others I can't recall right now work great in analytic
philosophy, but can't be converted (or translated) into continental
thought. Likewise the terms deconstruction, power, subject, genealogy,
and archaology can't be converted (or translated) into analytic
philosophy. The only way to understand these terms is to completely
immerse yourself in the philosophy (analytic or continental) you are
studying at the time, and try not to "import" outside concepts that do not
belong in that philosophy.
...
Kristin Switala
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
although not a philosopher, i have some problems with the scheme of the
radical heterogeneity of 'the two philosopher'. I think such heterogeneity
does exist, and - as somoehow who's read continental philosophy, but
did my unergraduate degree in a deeply analytical university and most of
my friends being philosophers - i've certainly had experience of this
complete incommensurability. And really ridiculous analytical critiques of
continentals, such as John Serale vs. derrida, only confirm this
pint From my perspective, analytic philosophy doesn't offer a particluarly
critical language to argue from, as it takes rather too many categories for
granted (for example, oppositions etween onjectivism and relativity,
structure and agency &c...). But when there are analytic philosophers
who are doing work which is attempting to be critical of such categories
(e.g 'mind' in the work of Daniel Dennet), but paradoxically is still thinking
in these categories, isn't some kind of attempt at translation a good thing.
Translation of some sort is certainly needed, as neither 'school' is going
to be able to sit down with its opposite and undertstand what is going
on... - but i have in mind some kind of Benjaminian translation which
alters the vocaulary of the recipient language with the words from the
'original'.
Jon Wilson
------------------
Basically, what Geraldine (and other analytic students) need to do is to
realize that continental philosophers do not function under the same
categories as analytic philosophers. Also, they have quite different
concerns and goals. The terms relativism, epistemology, metaphysics,
Truth, and others I can't recall right now work great in analytic
philosophy, but can't be converted (or translated) into continental
thought. Likewise the terms deconstruction, power, subject, genealogy,
and archaology can't be converted (or translated) into analytic
philosophy. The only way to understand these terms is to completely
immerse yourself in the philosophy (analytic or continental) you are
studying at the time, and try not to "import" outside concepts that do not
belong in that philosophy.
...
Kristin Switala
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
although not a philosopher, i have some problems with the scheme of the
radical heterogeneity of 'the two philosopher'. I think such heterogeneity
does exist, and - as somoehow who's read continental philosophy, but
did my unergraduate degree in a deeply analytical university and most of
my friends being philosophers - i've certainly had experience of this
complete incommensurability. And really ridiculous analytical critiques of
continentals, such as John Serale vs. derrida, only confirm this
pint From my perspective, analytic philosophy doesn't offer a particluarly
critical language to argue from, as it takes rather too many categories for
granted (for example, oppositions etween onjectivism and relativity,
structure and agency &c...). But when there are analytic philosophers
who are doing work which is attempting to be critical of such categories
(e.g 'mind' in the work of Daniel Dennet), but paradoxically is still thinking
in these categories, isn't some kind of attempt at translation a good thing.
Translation of some sort is certainly needed, as neither 'school' is going
to be able to sit down with its opposite and undertstand what is going
on... - but i have in mind some kind of Benjaminian translation which
alters the vocaulary of the recipient language with the words from the
'original'.
Jon Wilson
------------------