European Journal of Political Theory 15 (2):138-154 (2016)

Authors
Thomas Donahue
Haverford College
Abstract
What today divides analytical from Continental philosophy? This paper argues that the present divide is not what it once was. Today, the divide concerns the styles in which philosophers deal with intellectual problems: solving them, pressing them, resolving them, or dissolving them. Using ‘the boundary problem’, or ‘the democratic paradox’, as an example, we argue for two theses. First, the difference between most analytical and most Continental philosophers today is that Continental philosophers find intelligible two styles of dealing with problems that most analytical philosophers find unintelligible: pressing them and resolving them. Second, when it comes to a genuine divide in which not understanding the other side’s basic philosophical purposes combines with disagreement on fundamental questions of doctrine, the only such divide today is that between those analytical philosophers who tend to solve problems and those Continental philosophers who tend to press problems. It is among these subgroups that there is a real philosophical divide today. So the analytical–Continental divide is more a matter of style than of substance; but as we try to show, differences in style shape differences over substance
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/1474885115585324
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,393
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.Robert E. Goodin - 2007 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1):40–68.
In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff. [REVIEW]Gerald Dworkin - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (18):561-567.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Reconceiving the Democratic Boundary Problem.David Miller - 2020 - Philosophy Compass 15 (11):1-9.
Challenging Borders: The Case for Open Borders with Joseph Carens and Jean-Luc Nancy.James A. Chamberlain - forthcoming - Sage Publications: Journal of International Political Theory.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

From a Continental Point of View: The Role of Logic in the Analytic-Continental Divide.Franca D'Agostini - 2001 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (3):349 – 367.
Meta-Philosophy of Religion.Nick Trakakis - 2007 - Ars Disputandi 7:1-47.
What is Continental Philosophy?Simon Critchley - 1997 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (3):347 – 363.
How Rational Can a Polemic Across the Analytic -Continental 'Divide' Be?Marcelo Dascal - 2001 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (3):313 – 339.
Čo Je a Čo Nie Je Súčasná Analytická Filozofia.Pavel Cmorej - 1996 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 3 (1):1-8.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-05-15

Total views
77 ( #139,351 of 2,448,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #82,497 of 2,448,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes