From PhilPapers forum Continental Philosophy:

2009-11-02
The analytic/continental divide
Thanks for the reply. I would suggest that as long as humans are biologically-based creatures who seek to live in ways that aren't merely biologically based--to get some idea of what a truly good life would be, and in that way to be free, self-determining, or "themselves"--the "classical" thinking of Plato and Hegel (and Vedanta, Taoism, etc.) will be as relevant as it ever was. None of these traditions are wedded to the ephemeral phenomena that you mention: colonialism, communism, nationalism.

As for Hume's essay, I see that as in his ethical and epistemological works, here too he does not address the issue that I just described: how a biologically-based creature might function in ways that aren't merely biologically based, and in that sense "be itself." Which (as Plato and Hegel show) has major consequences for the way such a creature would deal with others of its kind (ethics and politics).

A leading philosopher, recently deceased, who tried to address the political situation that you describe is John Rawls, of Harvard. See his _Law of Nations_, as well as his classic _Theory of Justice_. I personally think that the weakness of Rawls's important work in political philosophy is that he didn't go deeply enough into the issue that I've described. I would say the same of prominent "continental" writers in political philosophy, such as Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault.

Best, Bob