What is Analytical Philosophy? What is Continental Philosophy? What are the differences between them?

 We see that there are two philosophical traditions that are at the forefront in contemporary philosophy. These traditions are called analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. 

 

In this article, we will provide information about the two traditions, compare these traditions, and clarify some points about the analytical philosophy/continental philosophy distinction.

What is the Philosophical Tradition?

When does a certain "body of philosophers and philosophical ideas" become a separate "philosophical tradition"? At the very least, it seems that these philosophers and ideas should be similar in certain respects. Otherwise we would have no reason to gather a "body of philosophers and philosophical ideas" under one "tradition".

In what ways do philosophers and ideas share a common philosophical tradition? There are many possible answers to this question. Members of a philosophical tradition may have very different commonalities. Some of these common aspects are:

1. Method: Similarity in terms of the method of doing philosophy. Ex: Everyday Language Philosophy, Naturalism, Pragmatism, Phenomenology etc.
2. Topic: Similarity of topics covered, issues focused on, main ideas. Example: Existentialism.
3. Main philosophical figures: Similarity in terms of philosophers from which focus and/or main themes are drawn. For example: Kantianism, Aristotelianism etc.
4. Main philosophical doctrines: Similarity in terms of accepted main philosophical doctrines. For example: Materialist Philosophy, Idealist Philosophy etc.
5. Period: To have been active in a certain period. For example: Ancient Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, Modern Philosophy etc.
6. Nation/Religion: Philosophy that focuses on a certain religious tradition/left from a certain religious tradition or originates from a certain geography/nation. Ex: Islamic Philosophy, Christian Philosophy, Indian Philosophy, Chinese Philosophy, Greek Philosophy etc.

It is important to see that there may be transitivity between aspects that may be common. In other words, being similar in one of these aspects can bring about being similar in terms of the others. For example, Kantianism and Aristotelianism, which are similar in terms of philosophers whose thoughts are focused on the members of their traditions and whose main themes are taken, are not only in this respect; It includes philosophers who are similar to each other in terms of philosophical method, topics covered and main philosophical doctrines. Each of the forms of similarity may contain other forms of similarity either explicitly or implicitly.

 

While trying to reveal the distinction between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy, it is seen that some of the aspects I have mentioned are referred to here. Continental philosophy is generally seen as a way of philosophizing that is based on linguistic analysis and symbolic logic as a method, is clear and unambiguous in its style, is close to the natural sciences compared to the humanities and social sciences, and focuses on philosophers in the UK and the USA. It is seen as a school that focuses on the ideas of certain philosophers from Continental Europe, intertwined with social sciences and humanities, whose language is full of metaphors and not easily understood.

It is thought that analytical philosophy deals with abstract and theoretical issues and not issues related to daily life, while continental philosophy deals with issues directly related to the 'human condition' and seeks solutions to problems from within life. Among the main figures of analytical philosophy are philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, George Edward Moore, Gottlob Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein; Among the main figures of continental philosophy are philosophers such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger, Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida.

While the history of continental philosophy begins with Kant, the beginning of analytical philosophy is based on Gottlob Frege's studies on the foundations of mathematics and logic in the 19th century. Analytical philosophy mainly with countries such as USA, England, New Zealand, Australia and Northern European countries; Continental philosophy is identified with Continental European countries such as Germany and France.

 

But such a distinction between schools is superficial at best and false at worst. Considering that analytical philosophy is based on language analysis and symbolic logic, we need to exclude many studies traditionally included in this school. Although symbolic logic has a serious place in analytical philosophy, there are many analytical philosophers who do their work without using logic. Although language analysis is a methodological tool that has gained weight in a certain period of analytical philosophy, it cannot be said that most analytical philosophers use this method at the moment. According to the fields studied, it can be seen that analytical philosophers are closer to human and social sciences rather than natural sciences.

 

Similarly, the analysis of language in continental philosophy can have a serious place, although perhaps in a different way from analytic philosophy. Poststructuralism, hermeneutics and deconstruction schools are among the schools of continental philosophy that can be said to have applied to language analysis. Moreover, it is not possible to say that there are no studies of continental philosophy that deal with abstract issues and are disconnected from life in the sense mentioned here. As it can be understood, the differences between schools are simply “Analytic philosophy is like this, continental philosophy is like this.” It is quite difficult to test it out.

 

Even if the differences exemplified above do indeed exist in general, are they sufficient to justify the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy? Why not just say 'philosophy' instead of 'analytical philosophy' and 'continental philosophy'? Might these labels do nothing but create unnecessary animosity between philosophers and ideas and restrict the thinking of the followers of these traditions? Is it necessary to use these tags nowadays?

Before looking for answers to these questions, it is necessary to say something about in which cases we should say that a different philosophical tradition exists. Under what circumstances would we be right to say that two groups of philosophers and ideas formed distinct philosophical traditions?

Comparison of Analytical Philosophy and Continental Philosophy

In this subsection, I will compare the traditions of analytical philosophy and continental philosophy in detail. One of the important points that I should mention before doing this is that each of the points of distinction that I will talk about here, as I mentioned in the previous title, has exceptions. Every difference I mentioned can have at least one exception. For this reason, it should be kept in mind that the distinctions made do not draw a sharp boundary. However, in the light of the criteria specified here, we can say that you can distinguish the works of two traditions with a very high accuracy rate, and we can refer to the criteria I will mention here to determine the extent of family similarity.

Now let's move on to the comparison of the two traditions.

Topics Covered

The distinction between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy divides contemporary philosophy into two rather broad categories. When it comes to such broad categories, it should not surprise us that the topics covered show a serious parallelism, at least in outline. It can be said that the topics covered are common in terms of main headings. Ultimately, both analytical philosophy and continental philosophy seek answers to philosophical questions about the same reality. Both schools focus on problems related to topics that have traditionally been the subject of philosophical reasoning, such as value, knowledge, mind, the place of man in the universe, religion, language-reality relationship, and social reality.

But the partnership does not go beyond the partnership of the broadest titles. The questions asked and the approaches adopted on these topics can differ significantly. Therefore, although there are similarities in terms of general categories, the two schools are extremely different from each other on the basis of details. For example, although there are not many discussions about the existence and attributes of God in the philosophy of religion within the continental tradition, these debates have a central position in the analytical philosophy of religion.

 

In this way, when you take and examine books from fields such as continental ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, these works are not only in terms of the thinkers discussed in the analytical philosophy books in the same fields; You can see that they are quite different in terms of questions asked, weighted topics, accepted positions. If we look broadly, analytical philosophy and continental philosophy seem to be schools that have almost no intersection with each other, although they are related to the same topics.

Associated Sciences

We see that analytical philosophy is close to natural sciences such as physics and biology, as well as logic and mathematics, which are called formal sciences. Philosophers interested in the fields of mathematics, physics, and the philosophy of biology largely belong to the analytic philosophy tradition. We see that philosophical problems related to these sciences are handled much less in continental philosophy. Philosophers interested in continental philosophy seem to be more interested in social sciences such as sociology, history, literature, and humanities.

Wording

One of the most important differences between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy is related to the styles of philosophers belonging to these traditions. Especially the works of the founding figures of continental philosophy are famous for being difficult to understand and being open to many different interpretations. It is still highly controversial how the ideas of continental philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida should be interpreted.

In analytical philosophy, discussions of philosopher interpretation are not common, except for a few philosophers. Analytical philosophers try to define their concepts meticulously and present their arguments after they have meticulously defined their terms. For this reason, analytical philosophers are often criticized for having a dry and boring style. Continental philosophers, on the other hand, are considered as philosophers who have more impressive stylistics, richer literary expressions and enrich their writings with more metaphors.

Many analytical philosophers would say that the dryness of their style is a reasonable price to pay for better understanding. Continental philosophy lovers will say that it is much more enjoyable to read continental philosophers and that the works of these philosophers are much more impressive.

The Importance Given to the History of Philosophy

For many continental philosophers, a detailed study of the history of philosophy is indispensable for learning philosophy. Moreover, many famous continental philosophers have been historiographers of philosophy. An example of this situation is that Deleuze studied Spinoza and Hume, and Heidegger studied Aristotle.

Most analytical philosophy-focused departments also offer courses to give students a general understanding of the history of philosophy. However, the focus of these chapters is for students to learn about the relatively 'contemporary' classics of analytical philosophy. It is rare for the history of philosophy to be found in detail in analytical philosophy programs. Many analytic philosophers have not done a detailed reading of the history of philosophy while specializing in their fields.

 

We see that analytical philosophers have been subjected to serious criticism by those who claim that they do not attach the necessary importance to the history of philosophy. These criticisms are not entirely unfounded. Most analytical philosophers are not very willing to study philosophers in history from primary sources. In fact, this situation has caused many analytical philosophers to make serious mistakes by ignoring the discussions on how to interpret these philosophers while talking about philosophers in the history of philosophy.

Historical/Anahistorical View of Philosophy

Another point parallel to the fact that analytical philosophy attaches less importance to the history of philosophy than continental philosophy is that analytical philosophers try to interpret philosophers in history from a 'suprahistorical' perspective. Even when making a history of philosophy, many analytical philosophers comment by leaving out the historical conditions of the philosophers, the social effects they were exposed to, the culture they lived in, their lives, personalities and many other historical details. They say that we should abstract the thoughts of philosophers from historical details and focus on the content of the arguments put forward.

Many continental philosophers will say that when interpreting philosophers, it is wrong to abstract them from the historical process of which they are a part. No matter how original the philosopher is, he is a product of the society in which he lives and cannot be isolated from the society in which he emerged. Many analytical philosophers will admit that the historical details are interesting, but will say that they will not help us much when interpreting the philosopher.

At this point, the criticism from the continental philosophy camp to analytic philosophy, that analytic philosophy tries to look at philosophy in a suprahistorical way, causes some problems. For example, analytic philosophy can be accused of pushing philosophers in history to read with the prejudices of our time. Ignoring how philosophers in history arrived at their thoughts and the history of which they are a part can lead to unfair criticism or vice versa. These criticisms are not entirely unjustified.

Anxiety of Touching Life

The view that philosophy should aim to touch human life is quite common among continental philosophers. Touching life is one of the main concerns in continental philosophy, while analytic philosophy can partly seem to people struggling with more technical and academic 'details'.

The Relationship of Art with Philosophy

Their position on the relationship between art and philosophy seems to be one of the deepest divergences between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. There is strong opposition among analytical philosophers to the claim that artistic activities such as music, cinema, architecture, novels, and poetry make a significant contribution to philosophy. So much so that among the defenders of analytic philosophy, we often see the opinion that the philosophy applied to works of art is not 'true' or 'good' philosophy.

Of course, there are different ideas about the relationship between art and philosophy in the tradition of continental philosophy. However, it seems obvious that the view that the role of art in philosophy is very important is much more common in continental philosophy. Although we come across things such as painting, poetry, interpretation of novels, analysis of architectural works in continental philosophy, and quite often, we do not see anything like this in analytical philosophy. It can be said that analytical philosophers did not attribute an essential role to art in philosophy, but used it as a pedagogical tool from time to time. In particular, the popularizers of analytic philosophy occasionally use works of art instrumentally.

For example, we can see that Back to the Future is mentioned when talking about time travel, and The Matrix is mentioned when discussing skepticism. In fact, we see that some moral philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum have stated that literature should be a part of moral education. However, in analytic philosophy, as in many continental philosophers, art is not one of the main elements of the methodology of philosophy.

Political Neutrality

In analytical philosophy, the view that many discussions are politically neutral, or at least that we should act on this assumption, seems to prevail. What this means is that in analytical philosophy the political realm and the non-political realm seem to be separated by thick boundaries, at least in most philosophical discussions. While analyzing the arguments, the political positions of the parties, the prejudices they may have, and similar things are largely ignored.

It can be said that the power/power relations in the background of the discussions are ignored in many philosophical discussions. Arguments are tried to be analyzed from a supra-political point of view as well as from a supra-historical point of view. This is true not only in non-political philosophy, but also in political philosophy itself. The positions of the parties, the experiences and grievances that they may have experienced are almost insignificant in the discussions of analytical philosophy. Only the contents of the arguments matter. It doesn't matter 'who comes from where'.

 

On the other hand, in continental philosophy - at least in an important part of this tradition - it is widely thought that things such as what political prejudices the thinkers wrote, what kind of experiences they had, and the grievances they experienced are important when philosophizing.

Because analytical philosophy ignores these, it can be criticized for fostering a kind of ideological blindness towards the oppressive perspectives that dominant ideologies cause us to have. Perhaps political neutrality itself should be seen as a political position, and analytical philosophy's ideal of neutrality serves to dominate the dominant ideology? We will say more about this in the section on critiques of analytic philosophy.

Geography

We often see that philosophical schools are separated from each other by the geographies where they are common or where they emerged. It is possible to make the distinction between continental philosophy and analytical philosophy through geography.

Analytical philosophy is a form of philosophy that is common in Anglo-American countries, especially in England and the USA. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is a form of philosophy that is common in Continental European countries, especially in Germany and France. It is also seen that this distinction is made especially in terms of the places where these traditions emerged.

However, it should not be forgotten that analytical philosophy is a way of doing philosophy that has its roots in Germany, especially in Frege. Nevertheless, if we consider that the commentators who say that Frege was one of the inspirations at the beginning of analytical philosophy and that he had no intention of spearheading a new way of philosophizing, are right; It seems more correct to refer to Moore's studies.

It is reasonable to associate these schools with the geographies mentioned here, both in terms of their origins and the countries in which they are widespread. However, the geographical distinction does not show how these philosophical traditions differ from each other in essence. Therefore, it can be said that the geographical distinction on its own is not satisfactory and constitutes only a part of the distinction we will make.

Question Oriented / Philosopher Oriented

Especially when we look at contemporary continental philosophers, we see that a very serious part of these philosophers are clustered around certain philosophers. The following determination seems quite appropriate: "Which philosopher are you studying?" The question arises especially in continental philosophy, and it cannot be said that this question is a reasonable one in analytic philosophy. Especially in continental philosophy, many philosophers continue to work as experts or followers of a certain philosopher. Philosophers from the tradition of continental philosophy spend a great deal of time studying and interpreting certain philosophers such as Butler, Foucault, Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, Baudrillard.

In analytical philosophy, the number of philosophers who specialize in certain analytical philosophers and spend time on interpreting certain analytical philosophers is quite low. Analytical philosophers often focus on and specialize in certain philosophical questions.

 

The point we need to consider here is this: Of course, continental philosophers do this because of their motivation to study certain topics/questions while working with certain philosophers. So, of course, they also mainly focus on certain issues. However, it is one of the points that distinguish continental philosophers from analytical philosophers that they follow the path of concentrating on certain philosophers while doing this.

Optimism About Science

It can be said that analytical philosophers have a more optimistic attitude towards science. Science is seen as an activity that converges too much to impartiality, both because it is seriously successful in reaching objective truth and because it has institutional mechanisms to prevent it from falling into the clutches of political/social prejudices.

 

Continental philosophy, on the other hand, emphasizes that science is a toy in the hands of states and that it has its share of cultural/political prejudices. Skepticism against the kind of objectivity that science aims at and even the kind of objective reality that science tries to discover is an attitude we can see from time to time in continental philosophers. Many continental philosophers attach great importance to fields such as information sociology/information archeology, which states that the production processes of scientific knowledge are also seriously affected by sociological factors, personal interests and economic relations. Skepticism about the impartiality/reliability of the working process of science and the accuracy of the results it tries to reach is one of the more dominant attitudes in continental philosophy. In analytical philosophy, it is more widely accepted that, although imperfect, scientific institutions and scientific methods are quite successful in eliminating errors.

However, from what has been said, it should not be understood that the philosophy of analytical science completely rejects the pessimistic views we see in continental philosophy. On the contrary, various criticisms of the objectivity of science by philosophers such as Kuhn and Feyerabend, which can be accepted within the analytical tradition, are partially accepted by most of the philosophers of analytical science. Belief in a science that produces truly idealized, objective knowledge is not common even among the most scientifically-trusted philosophers of analytical science.

Of course, there are philosophers who belong to the traditions of continental philosophy and analytic philosophy, but whose attitudes towards science are different. However, the general trend shows that analytical philosophers trust science more than continental philosophers.