Filosofi som kultur eller vetenskap?


If you believe that philosophy reflects continuous progress like the natural sciences, then all the other cultural traits of analytic philosophy follow automatically: expert specialization on small problems; fine-pointed journal articles rather than sprawling books; a fondness for the coining of new technical terminology; an amused toleration for historians of the philosophical craft, who don’t seem to be practicing philosophy themselves; a focus on argument over vision, and on the solid over the ingenious; a vague contempt for literary style as an important element of philosophy, with clarity now the only respected value in writing; a lack of intimidation in the presence of the great thinkers of the past, just as a modern-day engineer would be unlikely to feel intimidated by Thomas Edison, who was great for his time but knew less than an undergraduate engineering major knows today; belief that there is a fairly sharp disciplinary line between philosophy and the other humanities, but that the natural sciences often have much to teach us.

If by contrast you believe that philosophy moves in recurrent historical cycles of greatness and decline, then all the rules of the continental school immediately follow: the belief that philosophy and its history are not separate; the view that it’s clumsy and gauche to go around looking for "mistakes" in Plato or Descartes in the way that analytics like to do; the ambition to write big systematic books rather than clean, concise professional journal articles; a focus on learning the languages of the great masters of our discipline; a sense of respect for those masters that often slides toward paralyzing intimidation; more interest in the literary dimension of these great masters, who are not just amassing correct propositions but trying to portray a cosmos that sometimes hides from us and can therefore only be addressed indirectly; belief that there is a fairly sharp disciplinary line between philosophy and the natural sciences, but that comp. lit. and psychoanalysis often have much to teach us.
Graham Harman

Filosofi som kultur eller vetenskap?

För mej är den båda, men däremot så är kontinental filosofi inte så värst mycket bättre kultur än analytisk filosofi, och analytisk filosofi är inte så värst mycket bättre vetenskap än kontinental filosofi.

Båda stilarna uttrycker ju var sin kultur och litteraturvetare använder sej nog oftare av kontinental filosofi än vad fysiker använder sej av analytisk filosofi.

Under 1900-talet så har både kontinental och analytisk filosofi haft ett anti-metafysisk pathos, vilket fysik och naturvetenskap långt ifrån alltid har haft.

Bl.a så kritiserade Einstein Bertrand Russell just för detta.

Analytisk filosofi vill ju vara vetenskaplig på samma sätt som naturvetenskapen, men synen på vetenskapen som obrutet kumulativ och progressiv har ju kritiserats under 1900-talet, t.ex av Thomas Kuhn.

Kanske innebär den kontinentala synen på filosofi en mer realistisk inställning och den analytiska en mer idealistisk.

Likheterna mellan analytisk filosofi och naturvetenskap kanske snarare är kulturella.

Hur som helst så uppskattar jag iallafall objektivitet och progressivitet som kulturella ideal, liksom även att uttrycka sej kort och koncist.

andra bloggar om
filosofi, analytisk filosofi, kontinental filosofi

Postat av: Marcus

Det här hotar att bli intressant:

2010-08-12 @ 13:02:18
Postat av: Ingemar

Det är nästan så att man har lust att bidra.

2010-08-12 @ 23:41:02

Kommentera inlägget här:

Kom ihåg mig?