An argument against continental philosophy

In this video we present an argument against those dastardly continental philosophers who some went as far as calling "fraudulent".
Continental philosophy refers to a set of philosophical traditions and movements primarily developed in mainland Europe that focuses on human experience, historical and cultural contexts, and often critiques modernity and rationality (although it is hard to pin down precisely). Major movements include phenomenology (Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger), existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir), structuralism (Claude Lévi-Strauss), post-structuralism (Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida), etc.
Some philosophers hate continental philosophy and in this video we will discuss why.

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter:
Discord:
Substack:

[hellajeff]

Whether or not Hegel or Heidegger personally believed a particular interpretation is completely irrelevant to whether the interpretations put forth are true or false. The only reason we would need to know for sure exactly what they were arguing is to appeal to them as an authority (a fallacious approach). If the theories of Hegel provide novel insights based upon interpretations of his work then it has value even if the interpretation *of his work* is inaccurate.

Also the guy at the beginning is a literal ancap and a transcendendental idealist for the "laws" of economics. Hardly the best example of analytic philosophy

[azazelazel]

Always found it insane that anyone accepts this category of 'continental philosophy' anything other than a strawman that analytic philosophers use to define themselves in opposition to. All the worst cliches about popular French and German philosophers are rhetorically spliced together to produce a coherent 'continental' school of philosophy, presented as an impenetrable web of nonsense that the sensible privately educated Anglophones have swept aside with their eminently practical empirical approaches. Come on, 'yeah well philosophers that don't speak English are umm unclear and I don't know what they were on about' is not actually an argument.

[jasnesciemnienie]

There are also some analytic interpretations of Hegel, for example by Robert Brandom, so this whole distinction is really not so clear

[tehnik]

I won’t speak for mathematics but Physics is certainly full of semantic vagueness and possible points of contention that might stem from that. It only manages to hide it for few reasons:
1. Because the mathematical/formal aspects are clear and rigorous, and these are used for making technology and predictions.
2. Because the pondering of the metaphysical meaning of physical concepts is at best not encouraged, and the passing down of them is carried by prior generations of physicists who have superficial understandings for similar reasons.

An anecdote of mine perfectly gets across this point: on my second semester we were covering the concepts of work and kinetic energy in a classical mechanics course. The assistant teaching us covered all the usual points: work is defined as a path integral of a force field, it equals the difference of kinetic energy, and probably the way that relates to potential energy for conservative fields.
I was puzzled by energy being implicitly given the status of some real, substantive quality (in physics generally) because how could it if it just stems from work, something that’s just a path integral? The assistant was just totally confused, and didn’t really get what was bothering me. Even though all I asked was a very basic question of what the significance of all this was as far as reality goes.

What makes semantic ambiguity stand out in philosophy is just that philosophy is a search for the truth of things. What are you even doing if not making a claim for something or against a different position on something?

As far as the wealth of interpretations go, I think limiting this as a “continental philosophy phenomenon” isn’t fair. You can find this sort of thing for a lot of philosophers throughout history.
The best example that comes to mind is Kant, because he was precisely trying to be very precise and rigorous about everything.

Admittedly, not everyone is as bad as Hegel, but I think semantic ambiguity is unavoidable when doing philosophy. It’s always concerned about things that are more basic than people normally need to define. Of course it will lead to points of unclarity when the author is not available for questioning.

[jessepeterson]

So you are resurrecting the thought of early (Tractatus-era) Wittgenstein? Good luck with that. There’s a reason he himself abandoned those ideas. Language doesn’t work that way. It’s not math.

[ThatMans-anAnimal]

That's functionally equivalent to saying all religions are frauds. It's a radical stance.

[ghevargheese]

"En filosofía es importante...". Como si hubiese una filosofía, que majaderos que son

[paulaustinmurphy]

As you'll know, no analytic philosopher is against continental philosophy simply because it's... well, *continental*. After all, there's much admiration for Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Tarski, etc. etc. - and even Brentano and Husserl - in analytic circles. Plus, there are many contemporary analytic philosophers in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, etc. But not so much so in France!

The point was made that (often) arguments aren't "made explicit" in continental philosophy. That assumes that there are arguments in the first place - it's just that the reader isn't spoon-fed. But what about the types of continental philosophy which simply don't have arguments at all - explicit or implicit? This is a type of philosophy (which is often indistinguishable from political or religious oratory) that relies heavily on (very confident) categorical statements, poeticisms, rhetoric, hyperbole, etc.

I've been accused of being "anal" and "pedantic" for stressing the definitions of concepts. Yet, if this isn't done, people often talk passed each other. That said, not all analytic philosopher do formalised their arguments. That is, they don't state a set of premises, and then offer a conclusion. So there are many midway positions between highly-formalised philosophy, and philosophical free improvisations.

[DosEquisMan]

Sadly, people who know nothing about more advanced philosophy will always be louder and more widely heard than those advanced philosophers themselves.

Even 4 minutes into this video there is so much wrong with it (which, ironically, could even be demonstrated "analytically") but I feel that all that needs to be said, or asked rather, is the following - which objective truths did analytical philosophy uncover which allowed it to somehow maintain the position that it is somehow more clear, has better arguments, or better address counter-arguments, than continental philosophy? Only the most obstuse philosophers would pretend that somehow analytical philosophy has proven itself to such a degree that it is able to lay claim to being better than continental philosophy in terms of metrics like clarity, argumentation, or addressing counter-arguments.

First of all, continental philosophy (whatever you want to say about its actual content) has largely arisen from the FAILURES of analytical philosophy - hence, why Hegel-among the German Idealists-is the one frequently designated as among being one of the most notable figures of continental philosophy whereas, somehow, Kant, Fichte, or Schelling, isn't. What in the fuck Kant, Fichte, or Schelling, successfully argue to make them more analytical than Hegel? Such a premise or argument would be ridiculous to try to argue and, yet, some of the most "clear-headed" (more like basic or primitive) philosophers always attempt to try to distinguish Hegel apart from Kant as being somehow especially continental (which for them really just means "unclear") - just say you don't understand continental philosophy and leave it there.

Second of all, continental philosophies ABSOLUTELY have clear premises that flow into deductively valid and sound arguments - anyone who claims that this isnt the case never actually took the time to read the continental philosophers they are bashing or made 1 or 2 half-assed attempts at doing so and decided that it wasnt their lack of an understanding that was the cause of not being able to understand the text but, rather, it was the text itself. Which, on its face, is fine - however, as evidenced by some of the more post-modern thinkers that also hold clarity in high regard in philosophy (most notably for me are American pragmatists thinkers like Dewey or Rorty), the problem isnt that continental philosophers dont have arguments, the problem-if anything-is that DEDUCTIVELY GIVEN ARGUMENTS HAVE (THUS FAR THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT) FAILED AT PROVIDING ANTECEDENTLY GIVEN REALITIES IN ANY OBJECTIVE SENSE. Here, the issue is most prevalent with Hegel - not in the fact that Hegel isn't sufficiently clear (although many Hegelian scholars themselves have argued this - for example, most notably, Robert Pippin) BUT THAT HEGEL'S ARGUMENTS ARE THEMSELVES CHARACTERIZED BY A (DIALETICALLY) LOGICAL REVERSAL OF THE VERY SHAPE IN WHICH ANALYTICALLY GIVEN DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS PRESENT THEMSELVES IN THEIR FAILURES TO PROVIDE NECESSARY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN RATIONALITY AND THEIR GIVEN PHILOSOPHICAL SUBJECT-MATTER (i.e. ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.). In other words, you begin to understand what continental philosophers are trying to do-in the form of deductive reasoning-when you understand that what they are trying to address is the failure of a history and tradition of analytically given deductive arguments to answer the questions in philosophy they tried to solve to begin with.

Third of all, how tf do philosophers-analytical or otherwise-get away with attacking an entire branch of philosophy without providing any positive definition of it DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY IMPLY THAT THEIR BRANCH OF THOUGHT IS (albeit negatively via the very act of implication I guess) DEFINED BY THE VERY CLARITY AND SIMPLICITY THAT THEIR SUPPOSED ANTITHESIS LACKS? Its unreal to me how some of the worst philosophers have the balls to make the claims they make with literally no support and then turn around and define their entire branch of thought with that same rational support, clarity, validity, soundness, etc. If the only worthwhile theoretical thinking has to be conducted in the same way we do mathematical equations then how is it that we still have no clue how to comprehensively account for any of the main philosophical areas of discipline on logically or rationally given terms? You may have your own view or standpoint on a given area of philosophy like ethics, metaphyics, epistemology, asthetics, or whatever, and you might be totally convinced of its validity, soundess, comprehensiveness, objectivity, etc. but no serious philosopher ever claims that THEIR arguments by any means account for THE ONLY objective view for what counts for ALL of philosophical thought - because to do so would not only be insane, but OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT. So, if you want an idea as to why continental philosophy exists or what it even is, just take a moment to consider how little currency any analytical theory of philosophy has on providing answers to the most fundamental questions concerning the nature of things in reality, or reality itself.

[danielsacilotto]

What an absolute mediocrity of an "argument". A series of generalities without no concrete reference to a single passage by any philosopher mentioned. You parade sophistry.

[edgarduran]

This video is more of a argument against analytical philosophers lmao

[Novaroma]

Analytic philosophers continuously display, with childish lack of self-awareness, their total inability to understand and comprehend complex ideas.

[ohjein]

I couldn't DISagree more ... often, if thoughts immediately appear "clear", this means you're just repeating familiar language structures, and philosophy can(!) be about going beyond. Like e.g. Heidegger did, he basically refracted the german language into itself to illuminate structure and heritage - impossible to translate into english. Is it difficult? Yes, but so is learning anything that goes against your deepest habits. Some people (including "professional" philosophers) are not interested in that or too lazy to dig deeper, fine... but stop the grandios statements and be more humble, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Bubblegob]

The number of video essays on this platform alone is proof most people would badly philosophise on anything for free. It's absurd to think it's a kind of organized con

[gavinyoung-philosophy]

This whole characterization of Continental philosophy (itself a very loaded and frankly unhelpful term) as generally unclear is just rubbish. The fact of the matter is that the two styles of philosophical discourse are doing something very different with language as they present their arguments. Both are “doing philosophy”, but concerning very different domains, phenomena, and objects of analysis. What the analytic guys fail to understand about Continental philosophers is that their subjects of concern operate on the cutting edge of language itself and often, what the Alaric guys see as “clarity”, the contents philosophers recognize as an obstinate unwillingness to accept the vagueness inherent in language and learn to more creatively approach philosophical discourse. Continental philosophers like Nietzsche, Foucault, Deleuze, etc tend to have a more narrative or literary tinge to their writing as compared to the dry but formulaic and clear style of analytic philosophers, precisely because they are often criticizing our notions of clarity, linguistic accuracy, metaphysical surety, and more. It’s easy to latch onto the proclivity towards neologisms in continental thoughts as a justification for stating that they lack clarity, but the fact of the matter is, these thinkers are just developing language in a novel and creative way that genuinely propels scholarship into new domains instead of agonizing over “problems” created by analytic philosophers who have often imposed such constraints upon their thought in an effort to pretend that language is as stable as they’d like it to be.

[THFLCNx]

Basically, the more wordy and inscrutable something is, the more likely it's bullshit.

[paulosousa]

Great video! I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of 200 page books that can be condensed into two paragraphs. It doesn't mean that some ideas can't be interesting but some times are quite commonplace or ill founded.

[thespiritofhegel]

Hold on a minute, Kit Fine? Wasn't he the one who wrote about fuzzy logic? Degrees of truth? I remember the name because about 35 years ago when I studied philosophy at Leeds University at a lecture for philosophical logic it has stuck in my mind our tutor saying, 'well, I suppose I have to say something about fuzzy logic, although I find it a distasteful subject'.

So is what Fine says about non-analytical philosophy (all philosophy is analytical by the way!) 20% true? Or 56% true. Maybe 73% true. You should ask him.

[mayatrash]

Hegel alone is the biggest counter argument to that. Hegel's philosophy is beautiful and much truer than many other philosophies

[uncommonsensewithpastormar]

What I understand to be continental philosophy is best understood in the light of Kant’s insight that what we call reality is a subjective construct arising from “categories of cognition”. Consequently, what is being investigated in continental philosophy is not reality per se, but the categories of cognition which inform said reality. There is, of course, plenty of badly written continental philosophy. Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness”, for example, often has a distinctively “stream of consciousness” style about it. Nevertheless, what this video calls “noise” is mostly the result of the readers lack of any real understanding of the philosophical perspective being presented.