Analytic vs. Continental Philosophy - the Schism in Modern Philosophy

The Analytic Philosophy vs Continental Philosophy divide is a faultline running through modern philosophy. In this episode we explore the origins of this divide and why these two paths diverged when their founders were in close contact. Edmund Husserl and Gottlob Frege were the two men that gave rise to Continental Philosophy and Analytic Philosophy respectively and surprisingly they were in close contact - critiquing each other’s work.
But despite this closeness, there is a historical backdrop to their concerns that invites us to reconsider this difference. Much like the Empiricism/Rationalist divide of the two centuries before Frege and Husserl, the Continental/Analytic divide ran along the line of the English Channel and seems to have been as much a divide of temperament as of philosophy. The British empiricists and the Anglo-American Analytic tradition are concerned more with a non-human standpoint - what reality is out there and how we can gain purest access to it. On the other the Rationalists and Continentals are more concerned with the human element - what it’s structure is like and what that tells us about the structure and nature of reality. This difference in focus on the human and non-human element widened into a irreparable chasm by the time of Martin Heidegger and Bertrand Russell.
_________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
________________
🎶 Music Used:
1. Magnetic - CO.AG Music
2. Mesmerise - Kevin MacLeod
3. Evening Fall Harp - Kevin MacLeod
5. End of the Era - Kevin MacLeod
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod / kmmusic
Subscribe to CO.AG Music kzbin.info/door/cav...
_________________
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:14 A Tale of Two Schools
3:28 The Continental Arising
7:18 The Analytic Tradition
9:12 A Metaphilosophical Problem?
_________________
#analyticphilosophy #thelivingphilosophy #continentalphilosophy #philosophy #husserl #heidegger #russell #frege

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Support the channel: 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ☕️ ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:14 A Tale of Two Schools 3:28 The Continental Arising 7:18 The Analytic Tradition 9:12 A Metaphilosophical Problem?

[@Eternalised]

Magnificent. I really needed a video distinguishing both these currents of philosophy. Brilliantly explained friend!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you very much! Always glad to be of service!

[@physicsprof.9639]

😂​bellowing it's rage & sorrow . The hunting party had to just sit and wait it out till they gave up and moved on. You cannot eat an elephant the skin is as thick as old tires so once the Hunters take the Tusks the remains just rot . For wealthy North AmericansAn 4:17 d@@TheLivingPhilosophy

[@TheCaelanB]

Absolutely cracking video! As a philosopher trained in the analytic tradition, this has really helped me appreciate the presuppositions of continental philosophy. Can't wait to get started reading some properly 😁 Also, tiny nit pick, but at one stage (7:55) you say that Frege attempted to reduce mathematics to logic. This isn't quite true, he only attempted to reduce arithmetic to logic. Other fields of maths like geometry, whilst governed by logical laws, aren't ultimately reducible to logic in his view. An analogy to the natural sciences might help to understand Frege's view. In the material world we have matter (atoms, quarks, etc...) and the laws that govern the behaviour of that matter (the laws of physics). Similarly, it might be supposed that mathematics has matter and laws that govern the behaviour of the matter. Now, on Frege's view, the governing laws of mathematics are always the laws of logic, irrespective of the field in which you are working. So, both geometry and arithmetic are governed by logic. However, the "matter" of these fields is different in each case. In geometry, the matter is spacial intuiton. In arithmetic, the matter is logic. This conviction of Frege's is why he believes that arithmetic can be reduced to logic, but other fields, like geometry, cannot. This comes out in the first few sections of the Grundlagen, which is a great read by the way. Again, this is a tiiiiiiiny nitpick, but after a hard and lonely year (thanks covid....) studying Frege, it's nice to be able to share what I've learnt with others so that hopefully they can learn too. So yeah, woe is me, and again, brilliant video.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

This means a lot Caelan and don't ever question the nitpick especially given the spirit of your message this is nothing but golden feedback and I wish that youtube videos could be updated so I could incorporate it more

[@firstal3799]

Good

[@OldDirtyDrake]

I'm sorry you had to suffer under icky analytic philosophy lol

[@timadamson3378]

Key terms you appear to conflate here on the Continental side: Husserl’s science of consciousness and science as a method apart from philosophy; psychology and subjectivity. 1. Husserl’s science of subjectivity is fully philosophical and precedes any scientific knowledge, just as Kant’s investigation into a priori knowledge identifies philosophical truths that precede all possible knowledge, including science. 2. Investigating subjectivity is not psychological if it reveals the conditions and factors responsible for all psychological realities. Husserl sough to identify the objective, I.e., essential, principles of subjectivity. These pertain prior to psychological methods or knowledge.

[@hypergraphic]

Great video. While philosophy is not religion, this divide reminds me of text-focused and experienced-focused religious groups. I think there is a very strong cultural reason why we are drawn towards one way of pursuing these things.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Yes I think actually you've struck on a very good point there that really resonates for me. This has opened up a whole new dimension in it for me. The textual path is safer in some ways; it's easier to teach and gives you something to grasp onto and give you certainty. The experience based path is fraught with the dangers of getting lost and yet the final attainment (if attained) is a more intimate encounter with truth. That's me thinking from a religious perspective and trying to map it over here onto the schools...I think this is one that's going to marinade in me great stuff Ronald!

[@billyscenic5610]

Fascinating. I never thought of about this. I remember this being a debate in Japanese Buddhism on reading for enlightenment or experiencing Satori through simply living.

[@EldafoMadrengo397]

Just wondering if you are thinking of doing a video on how Kant manages to synthesize the two schools? Or maybe any tips on where to look to read up on it? Felt like a bit of a cliffhanger at the end which has got me itching to find out more.

[@stephencarroll230]

Very good. I recently discovered that I was in the “alternative track” when I studied philosophy at University because my professors were a renowned Kant scholar and a student of Jaspers. I never studied “analytic philosophy” apart from basic logic from a professor who graduated from MIT and had a life size portrait of Russell in her office. Thanks!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha wow that's a lot of Russell for one room. Where did you go to university out of curiosity? It seems rare to come across the continental education in the anglophone world (although the Continental philosophers are big elsewhere in Anglophone humanities faculties but usually not in philosophy)

[@stephencarroll230]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I attended Umass/Amherst in the 80s. Prof. Ehrlich was a student of Jaspers and taught Existential philosophy and headed Judaic Studies. Prof. Robert Paul Wolff was a Kant scholar who published with Herbert Marcuse. He was forced out of philosophy there and headed the doctoral program in Afro Am studies. He still writes a blog almost every day which links to his lectures on Ideology, Freud, Kant, and Marx and still occasionally lectures in NY. Check out his Philosophers Stone blog or KZbin lectures. I also studied traditional western epistemology and metaphysics (Descartes to Wittgenstein) at Hampshire College with Jay Garfield. I recently saw a video of him giving a philosophical lecture to the Dalai Lama! He was a student of Sellars, and has us read Richard Rorty who bridges the gap between Analytic and Continental philosophy. I also studied Camus there. Thanks for the videos.

[@palominox64]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Joan Stambaugh, student of Martin Heidegger, guardian /owne of a number of his letters and philosophical works, premier translator of Being and Time, and other works- was tenured, and taught Heidegger and continental Phil for decades, at my NYC public uni. Many college undergraduate programs offer som Continental Phil class… But you are spot-on- it’s the Lit and the soft sciences- sociology, subjective and culture studies that Continental Phil dominates.

[@robertkrieter9065]

This is a very nice video. I would like to add that a central distinction between analytic and continental schools is their writing styles. I believe it is fair to say that continental is much more akin to literature as it often uses niche terminology personally created by authors and can be poetic in nature. Analytic on the other hand, dogmatically demands clear and intelligible prose that uses well defined and accepted terms to articulate their points of view. For the object of conveying a point, I tend to prefer the latter, but this by no means constitutes a valid argument against the brilliant writings of Deleuze, Heidegger and Derrida, for example, (whoms I have been reading profusely of late with frustration at times, while marveling in their ideas nonetheless).

[@juvenalhahne7750]

Esse comentário me leva a ideia de que as duas orientações são devidas à dois usos da linguagem antropologicamente necessarios: a técnica, decorrente das relações físicas com o ambiente externo onde as mediações instrumentais se baseiam no rigor de meios e fins, e a vertente simbólica da cultura em que a linguagem desvela os sentidos da consciência conforme se manifestam na religião, poesia e... filosofia. A IA portanto seria um desenvolvimento da vertente técnica da linguagem, mera engenharia. E o temor de que venha a se tornar autoconsciente consequência do descrédito da vertente simbólica da linguagem frente ao sucesso da linguagem tecnica. Curiosamente, no entanto, as duas orientações se encontram unidas originalmente em Platao, cujos dois mundos foi o modo como conciliou Heráclito e Parmenides. Subsequentemente, no período moderno, na divisão entre empirismo e racionalismo, Kant foi o filósofo que, como Platão, procedeu a reunião das duas linguagens..

[@charleswofford6296]

This is a fascinating video, and I agree with some of the concluding remarks that analytic philosophy is more empiricist while continental philosophies tend to be more rationalist. It may be a necessary evil of a short video, but it does seem problematic (I hate that word) to reduce both tendencies to the work of two particular men, in this case Frege and Husserl. You mentioned Bertrand Russell , Nietzsche, and a few others in passing, but really the whole Cambridge School could have been brought up. As I see it, analytic philosophy was formally born with Russell, Ayer, Moore, and the others at Cambridge. You mention that there are many philosophies which fall under the "continental" heading, but proceed to reduce all of them to the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger. But this ignores other traditions such as the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, which was both anti positivist (i.e. not so science-centric in their thought) and anti-Heideggerian. Confusingly, there were also analytic-continentals! The Vienna Circle was a group of continental philosophers that included Einstein and Wittgenstein, and they were just as zealous in their pursuit of logic and a mathematical basis for philosophy as Russel et al. I also think it might be misleading to characterize the analytics as modern and the continentals as postmodern. Obviously postmodernism is a continental philosophy, but most continental philosophies are still working in the tradition of Hegel and Kant. Reducing all continental philosophy to postmodernism is like reducing all analytic philosophy to logical positivism. That Kantian-Hegelian tradition also raises the issue that perhaps the analytics were born as a reaction to the continentals rather than vice-versa, as this video portrays. The philosophers on the continent continued their work as Hegelians, Marxists, Kantians, etc. when the analytic revolution was happening in England. It is the analytics who actually think they were starting something new. The continentals just went along their merry way, as they continue to do to this day. Anyway, I enjoyed the video very much! Thanks for posting it.

[@drjaydeepchakrabarty]

Thank you for such precise presentation of a huge topic like this. Especially helpful for people like me who do not have any disciplinary training in philosophy, yet need to know certain basic issues for our own fields.

[@coniferviveur3788]

Excellent overview of the intellectual chasm. This kind of content can be really valuable to those just starting out with philosophy as it provides an informative orientation in presenting the forest as a prelude to examining its trees.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks conifer! That's the aspiration! It's challenging because it's such a breadth but I do think there's something worthwhile in the attempt at least

[@billyscenic5610]

Great video. I spent most of my time reading Asian philosophy and was completely unaware of these two schools in western thought. A good primer to start from!

[@ArtiDesignHD]

You have miscontrued Husserl. Edmund Husserl was a PhD mathematican that worked alongside one of the most promimant modern mathematicians as well (Karl Weierstrass). Only afterwards did he turn his interest towards Philosophy (after being exposed to some lectures by Brentano). As someone mentioned below, Husserl opposed psychologism together with the scientific attitude (the natural attitude so to speak). He aimed to find the objective (he would have said "essential") structures of human consciousness, which is not to be equivocated with subjectivism (or psychologism) as they are phenomenological corollaries of those essential structures. He had no affinity with the scientific method and any sort of reliance on empiricism as he regarded them as not rigorous enough and guilty of presupposing too much. Lastly, you may have misread Heidegger (which is not rare even in academia circles, so to speak) in so far as he does not really diverge from Husserl all that much in methodology and rather than working in opposition, in a lot of ways he deepens his analysis (this is relevant because it indicates that the Heideggerian postmodern turn in continetal philosophy is not really arbitrary).

[@edcify8241]

I'm not an academic, but I've studied Heidegger, and I can tell his misreading is fundamental. Forgetting the aspect of the meaning of being and its implications for his method? I can't imagine an academic making such a mistake.

[@deyanirasaez9540]

You make the difficult easy, this ability is only possible with great intelligence and a large amount of knowledge. thank you so much.

[@asoulist4829]

Thanks for elaborating on this difference.

[@yqafree]

Thanks for this concise and thorough comparison. So much wealth in your video here.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and for the kind comment yqa!

[@Vak_g]

Excellent video! You really have a talent in explaining philosophic ideas! Thank you very much for your great work!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Vak!! Really appreciate that!

[@omarmahamoud378]

Loved this video. Just subscribed. Keep up the good work!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Omar!

[@AA-dv3ie]

it is clear to me: 1. the object of study is different. 2. there is only this universe to experience, so there is a union point still to find. 3. Finding truth and facts is hard, some just can't accept ignorance and being conditioned, the others don't seem to fear dissolving into nothingness.

[@godlindaffodil1556]

There is no doubt this video is a great help for students in their studies. But maybe we should take a moment to appreciate the majestic voice behind the screen, 👏👏👍

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha thanks Godlin! That one's going in my scrapbook XD

[@thelondoners-lifeisart]

Thank you for illuminating the great divide :)

[@Equilibrium47]

Loved this one! Keep up the good work

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks friend!

[@numericalcode]

Very useful explanation.

[@novembergold4144]

Yes! I think this is what makes me so damn interested in philosophy - the way it seems to connect and include just about every existing discipline, a neverending discussion between all human thoughts and discoveries. I feel like continental philosophy is strongly entertwined with literature, whilst analytical philosophy's roots are, as you said, maths and science... and I love litterature as I love science, both seem to me like different ways to seek the truth. I can't decide between one worldview and the other, mine seems to change every day. Isn't there some way to link them all together? Truly exciting stuff. I absolutely love your channel - it always offers me new perspectives and really shows the connections between different philosophies, thus representing exactly what I love about philosophy itself as a whole! Please excuse me if I phrase some things weirdly, English is my third language.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thank you that's wonderful to hear and I love the question about linking them altogether. It's interesting with the major overviews that we're going through with the channel it's an obvious question and it really makes you wonder what it is that leads people to such different conclusions. I have a few thoughts but no real idea!

[@novembergold4144]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I always love to hear your thoughts on those big questions and will definitely keep following you on this journey! Keep it up man :)

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@novembergold4144 Thank you kindly! I'm quite excited to see what emerges myself!

[@grounded9623]

Best explanation of 'modern' philosophy ever. Empirically valid but also rational! Subjectively satisfying but objectively defensible. Kant win.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Grounded!!

[@thesatirist7180]

It seems to me that the divide is more political rather than philosophical. Why not just use both methods and have an open mind rather than nag with one another! One solution may not be enough to solve a problem. The probability of having another solution may increase our chances towards knowing the truth. It's not about who's philosophy is superior, it's about what philosophy is, and it all entirely depends if do we truly understand, if no one can comprehend what philosophy truly mean, do we even deserved philosophy?

[@drkndlght019]

Nice vid. Thank you

[@turpinglipper9171]

Gold! Thank you very very much.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

My pleasure Turpin!

[@jeffk3746]

I think it definitely just comes down to temperament nothing to do with the culturals specially. Some Anglos will prefer Continental and some Europeans will prefer analytics. I think it comes down to personal preference as I know you’re familiar with Jung, the continentals and rationalists tend to prefer the introverted thinking, introverted sensing ways of thinking, with the Empiricists tending towards extroverted thinking and extroverted sensing. Different ways of seeing and interpreting the same phenomenon

[@gvastida]

Once again we subject the human experience to unfortunate binaries

[@HxH2011DRA]

Thank you for this and the empiricism vs rationalism video, I can finally get my thoughts in order on these schools thanks to you!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah delighted to hear it! The research for these videos also made these really click together for me

[@HxH2011DRA]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I can see why, cheers!

[@joebuck4496]

Oh I gotta check out that video next!

[@siyaindagulag.]

Hmm ... Well done ! I imagine the bridging of such a chasm to be equal to or greater than an attempt to read and reconcile , both translations of Thus Spake/Spoke Zarathustra, simultaneously. A Hurculean task for sure . Much akin to a rigorous accounting for taste. Great work ; well presented man.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hahaha very good stuff! Haven't compared those translations at all but know that Kaufmann and Hollingdale's tastes are very different so I can imagine! Thanks for the kind words

[@siyaindagulag.]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Cheers. I read Kaufmann's as a much younger man , read the glue off it you could say, replaced it with Hollijgdale's. Not a loss , just a difference in style.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@siyaindagulag. Hahaha read the glue off it eh! that's a whole lot of Zarathustra you got in you then!

[@madebi85]

A great video, thank you!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Mattia!

[@philliptenneb6674]

your videos are art! thank you so much.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Phillip!

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Actually Donald Livingston's treatment of Hume demonstrates that he was the first phenomenologist and was an immense influence on Husserl. So far from Hume representing the analytic tradition he was actually a founding father of the continental.

[@stephenwarren64]

Superb!!!

[@parheliaa]

Interesting. I never heard about such conflict before BTW What is the source of the picture at 11:40?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Happy to help! The image is called "BrainChain" by Willem den Broeder

[@denilsonedwards.5582]

Genial amigo, KANT es fundamental para la Historia de la Filosofía.

[@tetus48]

Nicely done, but a bit oversimplified. Maybe you wish to mention also Dummett's "Origins of Analytical Philosophy" in which he also notes the common roots in Frege and Husserl. I think you also could mention the effect of the rise of Hitler in Germany on the thinkers of the Circles of Vienna and Berlin and the pioneers of logic in Warsaw, which brought, for example, Carnap, Reichenbach and Tarski to America and suffocated a comparable development of thought in Germany an most of Continental Europe at a critical moment.

[@swagatosaha]

Isn't it a decidedly "Continental" move to interpret this impasse as having to do with culture and temperament, rather than hinting at possible antinomies in the objective status of logic itself?

[@Harrow_]

If I may, and it just so happens that you still check out comments from old videos, I want to express my curiosity over a small part of the video. Is the analogy of rationalism-analytic philosophy and empiricism-continental philosophy valid? The more I think about the two older opposite schools of thought, the more I can’t help but observe that rationalism, with all it’s fixed, idealised, applying-for-all, sentiments kind of leans more towards the objective side and empiricism, with it’s turn to the denial of innate ideas, and sensory, first-person experience and observation leans more towards the subjective side. If I am misinterpreting the theories, I would be glad to get corrected.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

This is a fascinating point. While it's still strongly in my mind that the lineage is right it is funny that one has zigged where the other has zagged. I can tell that Hegel is the one that led to the reversal in the Rational/Continental side of things - that Idealism was so Rationalist that it caused a counterreaction to Materialism with Marx (who was a major impact on subsequent Continental thought) but also led to historical thinking which took the Continentals into a more historically empirical method. Hume is the inflection point with the Analytics I would say. He's still one of the three great British Empiricists but on the other hand there's scepticism in there strongly which could have led into the importance of logic in pulling the threads apart? I'm not half as confident on this connection though. So I'll stand by the lineage though I will hold my hands up and say I don't fully understand the mechanism

[@Harrow_]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for this insight and for still being active in older, mostly “forgotten” uploads unlike most creators.

[@NavidDragon]

My mind was also lingering on the same dilemma as I happened to find your comment. Convergence of thoughts is fascinating

[@coogee126]

Very helpful.

[@atuljhaveri3377]

Superb!

[@mr-century]

I would love for you to do a series on the TV show Mr Robot, I think it may be the best example of a Jungian story told in the modern day. At the very least, you and any one else who likes these videos would love the show

[@joebuck4496]

What is that painting at the end (12:08)? What is he reaching for? And it’s hard to tell who is the aggressor. Is the kid on top bullying the kid on bottom and trying to steal something, or is the kid on top standing up to the bully and taking a stolen item back? Or something else?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hi Joe it's a painting called Boyish Pranks by Karl Witkowski. He seems to be reaching for a purse that you can't see in the video image. Full image is here: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Witkowski_-_Boyish_Pranks,_1885.jpg

[@kushagrasachan8933]

Can somebody refer me to further stuff on learning about how Kant bridged the chasm between the empiricists and rationalists?

[@santerisatama5409]

Nice synchronicity. I just came by 'psychologism' when answering a question about coherentism and coherence theory of truth as the foundation of philosophy of mathematics. The only sensible option of the Fries's trilemma: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma#Fries's_trilemma Psychologism, together with 'relation' from the five tropes presented by Sextus Empiricus, leads to intuitionism defined as psychologism and process ontology, engaged in continuous process of trying to construct mathematical languages as coherent as possible, but which can never fully exhaust the idealist process ontology of mathematics. The whole materialist paradigm of modernism and scientism (aka "analytical philosophy") is characterized by the anti-empirical and anti-scientific amputation of introspection from empirical philosophy. The paradigm is also anti-philosophical in the sense that the Western tradition of living philosophy starts from the Socratic maxim 'gnothi seauton', which correctly translated goes: 'Feel thyself'. What is important to note, that "post-modern condition" of fragmentation into arbitrary language games (as observed and studied by late Wittgenstein) is internal to the very foundation of analytical philosophy, the post-modern and fragmentary language games of Hilbert's formalism and "Cantor's paradise", which Wittgenstein deservedly called "joke". Formalist school of mathematics is deeply anti-empirical, as it is based on totally arbitrary axiomatics, especially in the form of axiomatic set theories. What became "post-modern" philosophy was a zeitgeist phenomenon of dealing with the anti-empirical and irrational (especially so after Gödel's incompleteness theorem and undecidability of Halting problem and 'computational irreducibility' as stated by Stephen Wolfram) formalist core at the root of materialistic physicalism and analytical philosophy. There are many interesting paths in the whole historical narrative, among them worth mentioning Whitehead, who departed from the Frege-Russel-Hilbert paradigm after the failure of logicism and proceeded to process theology of dynamic Indra's net and point-free geometry in opposition to the point-reductionist substance metaphysics of formalism. Whitehead's approach is coherent with Intuitionism, Pyrrhonism and Nagarjuna, coherent with Zeno and Bergson and Bohm.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah wondeful! Always happy to be the medium for a synchronicity! Again Sextus Empiricus crops up I really must delve that direction. Oh actually I was talking to one of your linguistic cousins last week a girl from the Ural mountains in Russia. I had thought that Finn-Uralic language family had been a previous migration that was flowed over by the Indo-Euros give the Finland/Estonia/Hungary pattern didn't realise it was a much later thing originating from the Ural mountains so that was quite interesting. A question since I am dazzled by the breadth of your references as ever but have you ever considered making videos or writing articles? I'd be very curious to see what dots you would connect. The breadth of your references always amazes me and I'd love to see what you'd come out with

[@santerisatama5409]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks for asking. Nowadays I prefer the dialectical form, but I've been also working on a math article for quite a while. Math is slow to comprehend, even slower to try to speak comprehensibly...

[@santerisatama5409]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Again, your latest comment does not appear here. As for Einstein. The set theoretical view is that lines etc. consist of infinite sets of points. Hilbert's geometry is point reductionism. Actual computation happens in continuous flow of empirical time - Bergson duration. Actual computation would be impossible in point reductionism of Minkowski space-time (see Zeno). Hence continuous mtion of computation, which e.g. shows your videos, falsifies standard theories of physicalism, as far as they are based on Hilbert's geometry, real complex plane and such.

[@30sandrita1]

This is nice! Well done! ♥️👏👍

[@30sandrita1]

New subscriber here. ☺️

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Awesome Sandra that makes me smile! Welcome aboard!

[@30sandrita1]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thanks! ☺️

[@PhilPhysics]

There are a few books by Elizabeth Ramsden Eames, Claire Ortiz Hill, and Jimena Canales, which I've found bring into question this divide.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Oh really? Can you elaborate on what you mean by bringing into question the divide you've piqued my interest

[@PhilPhysics]

The first and second book discuss some nuances about the analytic side, by discussing more of the mathematics. Canales book discusses Bergson and Einstein on their divide about physics.

[@PhilPhysics]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy the first book is "Bertrand Russell's Dialogues with his Contemporaries"; Claire's book is "Word and Object in Husserl, Frege, and Russell", but the previous authors have other books on Frege and Husserl; and Canales' is "The Physicist and The Philosopher". Russell, Einstein, and other parties played a big role in how we view physics today.

[@pedrova8058]

a nice crossover born around Spinoza (a "rationalist"), whit guys like Wittgenstein making some allusions to the analytical work (Tractatus), and in the other hand people like Deleuze, Althusser, taking some things from spinozean ideas on ethics and moral. Baruch was a "special" type of rationalist...

[@toastlover12]

So interesting! Correct me if I'm wrong or use incorrect terminology. It seems to me that the Analytic and Empiricist side tends towards the modern trend of scientific reductionism in finding pure truth. Some would call that the "edgy atheist" phase of the internet. And the continental branch is more of a holistic approach of finding subjective truths through the human experience. Thoughts? This is Toastlover btw! Haha

[@samuelstephens6904]

That’s probably a bit too simplistic. I’m not particularly familiar with the continental tradition, but I would summarize the difference of being one of science vs. art. Scholarship in the analytic tradition resembles science in that it is problem-based. How does the mind represent things? How do we address paradoxes like the liar’s sentence? Should you pull the switch or not (trolley problem)? Should you one-box or two (Newcomb’s problem)? There’s a lot of overlap with the formal and natural sciences in interests. Philosophers often employ, or at least are mindful of, modern logic when approaching these questions. The scope of research is fairly small-scale. I don’t know if it’s fair to say that makes analytic philosophy reductionist though. Continental philosophy, by contrast, seems very oriented around specific philosophers (e.g. Heidegger, Derrida), texts, and movements (e.g. phenomenology, post-structuralism) much like art or literary scholarship looks at artists, their art, and art movements. I know people who basically read Deleuze and commentaries on Deleuze almost exclusively. Continental material is heavily exegetical, which gives it a more literary quality. There’s a lot of overlap with the humanities and social sciences.

[@marco21274]

I would say that analytic thibkubf is not a philosophy but a kind of new metaphysics.

[@vineandbranches9272]

I'm confused. Please help me somebody. Continental is associated with Husserl (German) because of Phenomenology but migrated to England via B. Russell to become Analytic? And Analytic associated with Frege (German) became the worldview of choice for Anglo-Americans because of the Modernist ideal of Science as the cure for all evils. But, earlier England was the source of empiricism (subjective experience) with Hume, Locke while the Continent produced Rationalists like Descartes, Libnitz. So it seems that Continental Rationalism/Analytical swapped places with English Empiricism/"Continental" by the late 19th Century. Am I correct?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hello no the Analytic tradition came through Frege to Russell. And as for the swithc, the thing with the Rationalists is that they weren't really more scientific thinkers as we think of them. Empiricism is the basis of science. It's the observation of things and examining their qualities from the outside. I'm not quite as hot on Rationalism but it was to the best of my knowledge more of a mental endeavour more teleological and mental still - less about observing things out in the world than reaching a priori truths.

[@mikaelnoone7304]

"Heidegger's explorations reveal that there are no universal structures of consciousness" - actually that might be an erroneous claim, because if you read Being and Time, you will notice that what Heidegger is aiming at is always fundamental structures, the ontology of what for him is consciousness as Dasein. I don't think that context and structure can be contrasted in a simplistic way, in the way that you do here.

[@edcify8241]

Exactly what I thought. It as if he had completely forgotten what ontology is and why he did it. Besides calling Sartre's philosophy "existential nihilism".

[@doyourealise]

amazing subscribed :)

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Awesome, thank you!

[@AlmostEthical]

The chasm strikes me as illogical. To understand the nature reality we need to focus on more than just the mind, and more than just nature, but on both and the intersection between them. The inability to connect the inner and outer worlds echoes physics' inability failure to connect the quantum and relativistic worlds. Interestingly, AI developers are probably investigating the space between being and doing more closely than most. The questions always arise for them ... what if the AI becomes sentient? How would we know if it was, and to what extent?

[@mengren6653]

What is the painting around 6:34 please?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

It's Sunset, Mont Blanc by an artist called Wenzel Hablik

[@mengren6653]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you. Every time I watch the videos I get to know something amazing beside philosophy!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@mengren6653 Haha delighted to hear it Meng!

[@josephruf5533]

Could''ve gone even further back as the split began with the monks

[@LuigiSimoncini]

Wow! New patreon!

[@owretchedman]

It is tempting to say that after all was said and done by Wittgenstein that he arrived at mysticism with his "That which can't be said must not be said." I doubt this is true. If you examine the statement, it's a moral imperitive. A moral is not a manner, so it's wrong to say that Wittgenstein is a mannerist. He's absolutely saying that saying what can't be said and then is said leads to a shitty life. There is truth in this, of course. The error, I think, Wittgenstein makes is to contend that speaking and not speaking are unrelated. Silence is just another form of communication, no better or no worse than speaking. In fact, silence and speaking are two sides of the same coin.

[@firstal3799]

"...to whom this tradition was fully born." Lovely use of words.

[@JackT13]

‘Whether Husserl was guilty of psychologism, is less important than that Frege believed him to be.’ Yes, I think that’s key. Great video by the way

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Gabe!

[@Appleblade]

I feel like lining up rationalism with continental and empiricism with analytic philosophy isn't quite right. They are both derived from and seem committed to grant experience final arbiter status. Locke, Berkeley & Hume built their 'Way of Ideas' philosophies off Descartes' epistemology... off of his 'method of doubt', ie, that if you can conceive of a way your knowledge might be false, you must then give up your claim to know. Taken to its extreme, as with Hume, our experiences cannot justify any knowledge of an external world, other people, God, the past, our own existence even. Radical empiricism leads to phenomenology and its off shoots. (Kant tried to use transcendental inferences to bridge the gap between experience and a mind-independent external world, and between experience and the experiencer ... but Sartre shot that stuff down to all non-Kantian continental thinker's satisfaction.) Analytic philosophers kept hammering away at the idea that careful analysis of language, logic, etc., might either fix the problems with skepticism or perhaps make its points mere foundational embarrassments in a self-supporting architecture of human knowledge. Eventually, in America, Quine tells philosophers to just "settle for psychology" when doing epistemology. Just become scientists... or take on the role of handmaidens to science. This would be more like accepting a faith filled empiricism. No we can't trust our senses, memory, self-awareness,... but it's all we have. Phenomenology as the be-all and end-all is nonsense (continentals are nuts). Science has a lot to teach us. So both reactions to skepticism... to Hume... are driven by various commitments to empiricism... a radical (continental) and a weak one (analytic). Rationalism ... I only see that showing up in some rare theoretical physicist talk. Like Max Tegmark arguing the world is made of numbers (you can reach reality only by grasping the deeply penetrating necessities of math). Or, importantly, in the Reformed movement of Xian philosophers, who, occasionally still use a priori arguments to prove God's existence, a la Descartes, and to derive epistemic confidence in our senses that way... or, like Plantinga, to urge a kind of reliabilism. In that account, it seems like the winning worldview is the one that explains most of our common sense beliefs and retains internal consistency (God required once again). I suppose that might be called a rationalist philosophy.

[@seanwooten6410]

Thanks!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million sean!!

[@seanwooten6410]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy The worker is worthy of his wages. 1 Timothy 5:17

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@seanwooten6410 Haha that's the classiest you're welcome I've ever received!

[@jakecarlo9950]

One guess as to which school the channel ❤️s the most. 🙄

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Continental?

[@TheRealValus]

"Concerning Ibn Arabi, I recall that someone once questioned whether Sufism admits traditional universality; Ibn Arabi supposedly would have denied this because he said that Islam is the pivot of the other traditions. Now every traditional form is superior to others in a certain respect, and this is in fact the sufficient reason for such a form; and it is always this respect that a person speaking in the name of his tradition has in mind; what matters in the recognition of other traditional forms is the fact - exoterically astonishing - of this recognition, not its mode or degree. In fact the Koran offers the prototype of this way of seeing: on the one hand it says that all the Prophets are equal, and on the other hand it says that some are superior to others, which means - according to the commentary by Ibn Arabi - that each Prophet is superior to the others owing to a particularity belonging to him alone, that is, in a certain respect." - Frithjof Schuon

[@TheRealValus]

"Revelation is intrinsically absolute and extrinsically relative... According to the first sense, Christ is unique, and he told us so; according to the second sense, he said this as Logos, and the Logos, which is unique, comprises in fact other possible manifestations." - Frithjof Schuon "There are people who take the written laws *merely* as symbols of spiritual teaching; they diligently search for the latter, but despise the laws themselves. I can only blame such people, for they should pay heed both to discerning the hidden meaning and to observing the obvious one." - Philo of Alexandria

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@TheRealValus Love it. Great way of saying that each paradigm has its own value and may have greater strengths depending on the subject at hand

[@Dystisis]

You (and most people nowadays) are really overemphasizing the idea that early analytic philosophy was wedded to "science" and scientific method. In many ways the emphasis on logic, in early analytic philosophy, was in explicit contrast to empirical science. It isn't until much later, in the positivists and especially American thinkers like Quine, that analytic philosophers began comparing their work directly with that of scientists. Although Frege strongly rejected psychologism, that was not because he took logic to be 'objective' in the sense of deriving from the material world and being known through experiential confirmation. Rather, he took logic to be essentially intersubjective. Two people can have precisely the same thoughts, and are subject to precisely the same logical standards of validity. Thus, Frege inferred, logic cannot be a matter of what goes on inside individuals' minds, as that in principle differs from person to person.

[@AdolfStalin]

Wait is this Keith Woods doing the voice?

[@pichirisu]

Surprise I don’t recognize either it’s all just superfluous knowledge

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

The Relativism often applied to a certain strain of continental thought has more to do with Nietzsche's influence than Heidegger. I think it's more accurate to to describe Sartre & Simone de Beauvior & Maurice Merleau-Ponty as a phenomenological existentialist and (to me) they remain firmly within the modernist tradition. Sartre and de Beauvior do not have a good grasp of Heidegger and rely heavily on Hegel (which Heidegger would have rejected). I'm not sure where you're getting this anti-science belief from the phenomenological existentialists. de Beauvior and Merleau-Ponty spend hundreds upon hundreds of pages engaging with the science of their time in The Second Sex and Phenomenology of Perception respectfully. I haven't seen anything by Sartre where he rejects scientific findings (omitting something from one's philosophical inquiry is not the same as rejecting it), though because Sartre is essentially still a Cartesian he often hypotheses about science in a Cartesian way largely seeing the body as an automaton. Analytic philosophy is by far the dominant trend in the West and more philosophy departments focus on analytic philosophy than continental philosophy. Continental philosophy also includes critical theory (the Frankfurt school), hermeneutics (Gadamar and Ricueor), and structuralism. Husserl's second book, Logical Investigations, has a 160 page prolegomena explicitly refuting psychologism in order to differentiate it from phenomenology (which was largely introduced in that work).

[@scriabinismydog2439]

Merleau-Ponty did explicitly criticize science for its inability to access the purely perceptual phenomenological experience of the subject. It is quite typical for philosophers who upold phenomenological positions to be somewhat anti-scientific to a certain degree.

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

@@scriabinismydog2439 Is criticizing science the same the thing as being anti-science?

[@scriabinismydog2439]

@@StrangeCornersOfThought of course not, perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. However if you read some more naturalism-committed authors like for example Ray Brassier (or even stranger ones like Deleuze and Derrida really, as different as they may be), you can easily see that they point out how phenomenology itself has some clearly un-scientific presumptions. My point being: it is not the critique of science per sé that is anti-scientific. It is the premises/assumptions that are made to make the critique [come from a phenomenological background] that are anti-scientific - or at least, anti-empirical/materialist science. I do not have any degree of experience with Merleau-Ponty's work outside from a very inattentive reading of some excerpts from the Visible and the Invisible and the P. of Perception so I don't know exactly how this maps out specifically in his case; [to me it seems as if Merleau-Ponty's work is a sort of "aggravation" of Heidegger's first period with a - quite ingenious to be fair - extension to a more effectively strictly "conscious" or intentional aspect (the perceptive register of lived experience, the elaborations on the senses, especially the spatial element which is in my opinion just fundamentally absent in Heidegger) in the perhaps more historically husserlian sense]. However I can easily point out some extracts from Husserl's or Heidegger's work that just seem to reject epirical science's authority over knowlede tout court. From Brassier's PhD Thesis: "[..]phenomenology -whether it take intentional consciousness or human being-in-the-world as its starting point- seems to us to remain wanting: it illegitimately universalises a paradigm of ‘phenomenality’ constructed on the basis of intuitions about individuation and manifestation derived from our empirical perception of middle-sized objects. Yet in exactly what sense, for instance, can the Big Bang, the Cambrian Explosion, or a 26 dimensional superstring (phenomena which are strictly unphenomenologisable precisely because they remain utterly unintuitable in terms of our habitual spatio-temporal parameters), be said to be things that ‘show themselves in themselves’? What are the parameters of this ‘showing’? To whom and for who is it supposed to occur? Whence does the mysterious faculty of intuition that is upposed to provide us with an immediately pre-theoretical access to the phenomenological essence of these rigorously imperceptible entities originate? The standard phenomenological rejoinder to such questions, which consists in protesting that these, along with all other varieties of scientific object, are merely ‘theoretical’ entities whose mode of being derives from that ‘more originary’ mode of phenomenality concomitant with our ‘primordial’ pre-theoretical engagement with ‘the things themselves’, is hopelessly question-begging. Belief in this pseudo-originary, pre-theoretical dimension of experiential immediacy is the phenomenological superstition par excellence. Briefly: the claim that intentional consciousness subtends a continuum of eidetic intuition running from tables and chairs at one end to transfinite cardinals and hyperdimensional superstrings at the other is grotesquely reductive. Just as the suggestion that objects of ‘regional ontology’ such as quarks, leptons and black holes have as their ultimate ontological root Dasein’s being-in-the-world (or the subject’s infinite responsibility for the Other [here Brassier is referring to Emmanuel Levinas' ethical inflection of phenomenology]; or the auto-affecting pathos of subjective Life) is an outrageous instance of anthropocentric idealism. If anyone is guilty of imperialistic reductionism as far as the extraordinary richness and complexity of the universe is concerned, it is the phenomenological idealist rather than the scientific materialist. Husserl’s idealism is as punitive as it is unmistakable: “The existence of a Nature cannot be the condition for the existence of consciousness since Nature itself turns out to be a correlate of consciousness: Nature is only as being constituted in regular concatenations of consciousness.”(Husserl, 1982, p.116). When it was written in 1913 -a full 54 years after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origins of the Species- this statement was already profoundly reactionary." Hopefully this makes my point clearer. I may also ask; have you ever engaged with the work of Michel Henry and/or Reiner Schurmann? I find their developements from heideggerian existential phenomenology to be quite more innovative than Merleau-Ponty's (with all the respect to the latter's work though).

[@wanderer.antonio]

I just want to feel good man. ✌🏽

[@siyaindagulag.]

I swear I saw Husserl's head move..... Anyone ?

[@DBayonetta]

You know nothing .......waren sie live dabei ?

[@thejackbancroft7336]

How tf is it "prejudiced" to refer to Europe as a continent. If you live on an island next to another enormous landmass that everything happens on, what else are you going to call it?

[@jeffreykalb9752]

Analytic philosophy consists in making very precise statements about nothing. Continental philosophy consists in making very imprecise statements about everything.

[@owretchedman]

I don't see analytic philosophy as philosophy, but as a science of manners. This school has no love of wisdom. This is neither bad or good.In a very real way, the analyzers contend that wisdom, or it's pursuit there in, is bad manners, bad form for any Dasien. Of course, wisdom IS bad manners in a very real way. Wisdom is rude, is crude. There is no doubt about this. So rude is wisdom that Socrates and Jesus were murdered by the society of manners. This is real shit. Now, see, if you can imagine an analyzer, a proponent of manners, being murdered by the crowd. The thought is at once absurd. It is impossible for someone to be murdered for standing up for good manners. No parrhessia is possible. As for Husseral, I have nothing to say. Great show, bro !

[@pseudoplotinus]

i dont get it

[@unknowninfinium4353]

First.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha congratulations akshay. I think you might also have the distinction of being the first person to say first on the channel so it might be an uber-first

[@unknowninfinium4353]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I feel special.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@unknowninfinium4353 haha and indeed you should XD

[@Opposite271]

Maybe science is not the omnipotent and omniscient God that can explain everything and solve all our philosophical problems. But do we really want to say that things like climate change and the theory of evolution are just one of many perspectives? Believes do have consequences and we should keep that in mind.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Completely agreed. But I think even with climate change and evolution it's important to note the perspectives. I remember hearing an evolution biologist talking about how in Communist countries the emphasis in evolutionary studies was on co-operative evolution whereas in capitalist countries the emphasis has been on competition. And with climate change there are different narratives eg around net zero vs degrowth. You could say that these are separate from the science but the narrative element is tangled up everywhere. So I think the thing with appreciating the role of perspectives isn't to see it as a dismissal of science but to realise that science is always done by humans and funded by humans with agendas and so we must see how the facts are being explored and presented from a certain angle. Even with the same facts there are room for multiple interpretations; pretending that there aren't can be a way of creating a smokescreen whereby you have people thinking they they are following a hallowed Science when they are following a science. I don't know if that makes sense. I was thinking as I typed as I was updating my evaluation of the question based on my more recent explorations

[@Opposite271]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Maybe we have to introduce a multiple perceptive realism in which a better understanding of reality is the result of looking at it from different perspectives and connecting the dots? Empiricism vs Rationalism Materialism vs Idealism Realism vs Relativism Analytic vs Continental Object vs Subject I have the impression that a big part of Philosophy is strongly influenced by the object-subject-dichotomy. In that sense analytic philosophy is object oriented and continental philosophy is subject oriented. On one end you have the eliminative materialists who try to eliminate subjectivity and on the other end you have radical relativists who try to eliminate objectivity. Maybe the problem lies with the dichotomy? I have wondered if Reality is maybe something that is beyond objective and subjective.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@Opposite271 Yes yes yes!! I think that this is really what the postmodern turn is about when you get into the weeds of it and you can see it in Picasso's art - the attempt to capture multiple perspectives in a single artwork. If we accept that every perspective is always going to be partial then creating a map out of many perspectives is the best approach -that way we can get the fullest map. In the preface to Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein has this great line: "The philosophical remarks in this book are, as it were, a number of sketches of landscapes which were made in the course of these long and meandering journeys. The same or almost the same points were always being approached afresh from different directions, and new sketches made." To me that's something beautiful. And Wittgenstein is perfect since he is the closest thing (other than Rorty) to a bridge between the Analytic and Continental traditions and right there you can why - rigour combined with perspectivism and nuance. I think you are spot on about the subject-object dichotomy causing mischief. With this all too neat dichotomy we end up seeing only black and white rather than seeing that the two are mixed together since we are in fact a part of this world and studying this world from the inside.

[@TheSergio1021]

2:46 is that Elon Musk?

[@timadamson3378]

You argue, correctly, that Heidegger sweeps away the subjectivist model of Husserl, Descartes, etc., and that the tradition largely follows him. How then can you say in your conclusion that Continental philosophy is concerned with subjectivity, as opposed to the Analytic emphasis on objectivity? Anyway, I enjoyed this effort and applaud it. It just seems clearly written from an Analytical perspective and is not able to articulate key issues outside that school.

[@Eric.Chiang.Artist]

This is not teaching, this is just a monologue. Can it be more expressive if you truly are communicating. Thanks for the effort. But it needs to be more communicative. Thanks 🙏🙏

[@satnamo]

Das world is my ideas and their representations. What I believe about life and das universe becomes true for me. Das truth is empty because emptiness is das truth. Empty of what ? Empty of its own existence because everything is interconnected and interdependent on every thing else as demonstrated by the Young Double Slit experiment Where the observer is inseparable from the observed electrons. Empty this boat so that it will go faster because it is lighter. He who crosses over to the other shore becomes arhat. Other people go up and down on this shore from death to death. Painful is birth. Painful is death. Painful is birth and death Over and over again.

[@amal-ti2zz]

A.ma.zing.

[@theempyrean1227]

It's so funny to see all those old white dudes in Togas. They're going to a party.

[@robertross7466]

A good summary spoiled by an infuriating mispronunciation of “Frege”. He has adopted the strange American habit of saying German names as if they have a French accent on the terminal e. In German it is a Schwa-sound (IPA) an unaccented “ah”, like Porche, ausghabe, stunde, etc. so Freg(Ah) not Fregee’.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Wow really? That one's not entirely my fault that was actually the way I was taught through university so I don't feel as mortified as I do when I repeatedly misprounounce Taoism. Thanks for the correction Robert!

[@robertross7466]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy sorry for being a bit of a pedant but glad to be of service. I think your summary on Analytic versus Continental Schools is excellent and very useful. Keep up the good work.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@robertross7466 Not at all Robert it's much better to know! Shame I can't update the video accordingly but at least in talking about him in future I can be accurate. I'm partial to that old line about it being better to look like a fool for a second and ask a question than to never ask and remain a fool forever

[@sulljoh1]

If science was just another worldview, no more or less true than it's rivals, then your phone wouldn't work. Or maybe you could get a working phone by chanting or praying or something.

[@jamesforster2194]

Something I don't quite understand is how the empiricist and rationalist trends in Anglophone and European philosophy gave rise to Analytic and Continental philosophy. It seems like empiricism is a more subjective route to knowledge and rationalism a more objective route. Your empirical understanding can only ever be understood subjectively, but rational, mathematical truths can be understood and shared objectively. Any help understanding this much appreciated!

[@JacobFeldman]

wrong, rationalist were objective thinkers out of psychology but with formal logics

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

The extroverted and objective attitude of the Anglo-American philosophers embodies all of the temperamental disagreements I have with the intellectual atmosphere of my home country of the UK and Jordan Peterson. He hardly gives subjective psychology the light of day and is actually an extremely poor student of Jung in this regard despite admiring him so much. I personally have far more in common with subjective and romantic attitude of the continent.

[@onkarvigy]

Continental philosophy did not possess at its disposal the service of modern computers to understand the phenomenon of “Emergent properties “. Cellular automata puts to rest the ontological status of much overrated /highly dubious consciousness!!

[@edcify8241]

?

[@dillirajbashyal2303]

a true philosophy is indeed nothing.

[@die_schlechtere_Milch]

You butchered the German. Also your suggestion that the divide between the two traditions is merely a cultural difference speaks the same relativism as these guys who think that science is just a cultural phenomenon

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Point taken. It just struck me as an interesting thought and you are very right there was the Vienna Circle of course and Frege also being from the continent it's more that it struck me as an insight that there seemed to be something there but I definitely take the point that it needs more rigour to really carry the weight that its claiming I guess I just got excited at the thought

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@Davis Edison Ah no way that's really cool Davis I'm humbled to hear you are sharing my stuff! I was indeed taking the criticism in good faith I'm a big believer in the coaching saying that "feedback is the breakfast of champions" if you can't take good criticism on board then you can't realign your compass with reality so it's very important. Thanks for the support!

[@BenjaminOrthodox]

Analytic > Continental

[@alexandercarroll9707]

The Analytic Tradition >>> Continental Crap

[@OldDirtyDrake]

Analytic philosophy is gross

[@bankiey]

Go team anal