The analytical–Continental divide: Styles of dealing with problems

• Published in: European journal of political theory Vol. 15; no. 2; pp. 138 - 154
• Main Authors: Donahue, Thomas J., Ochoa Espejo, Paulina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.04.2016; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Philosophers; Philosophy; Continental philosophy; styles; Analytical philosophy; boundary problem; methods; problems
• ISSN: 1474-8851; 1741-2730
• DOI: 10.1177/1474885115585324

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 (roughly, the heirs of Derrida). 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.