Continental Philosophy: What is it, and why is it a thing?

Dr. Ellie Anderson (co-host, Overthink podcast) explains the historical origins of the continental/analytic divide in philosophy in the middle of the twentieth century, and why we need to mobilize the term "continental philosophy" in order to overcome the sway Analytic philosophy has over contemporary anglo-American universities--and ultimately, overcome the divid altogether.

For more on this, see Dr. Anderson's appearance on the Unmute podcast (episode 54), "The Divide in Philosophy," as well as a forthcoming publication :)

Edited by Jeffrey Murray

Selection of works discussed in the video:
Simon Critchley, Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
John McCumber, Time in the Ditch
Simon Glendinning, The Idea of Continental Philosophy
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod

[mikeycham]

Years ago I found myself saying to a colleague, "If you think you have no ideology, that just means that you have the dominant one."

[thomasweir]

It’s very difficult to read Continental Philosophy when you’ve already trained in Anglo/American analytical methodology. I really struggled. I wanted to come to it in a totally open minded and inquisitive manner, but it was very hard not to ‘translate’ it and then dismiss many of the assertions. I made headway eventually but it wasn’t easy. I wish I’d studied both at the same time and learnt to understand the concepts and methods in comparison and a complementary way. Once you learn one method it’s hard to lay it aside.

[tristanguillermotorriani]

As a fellow academic philosopher I'd like to commend Dr. Ellie for her Overthink podcasts. She's providing high quality content and displays a thorough command of the topics she presents in each video. Her explanations are clear and to the point, considering the complicated subject matter. I'm sure a lot of hard work goes into making each one of these videos. If philosophy is to survive in the XXIth century, it'll have to be easily available on social media platforms. Having said that, I'd like to just add a few points to what she says here about divides in philosophy. In the history of the subject, there were many such divides. The most important was that between esoteric (for initiates) and exoteric (public) philosophy. For example, Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel and Many Palmer Hall were significant XXth century thinkers in the esoteric tradition. Other divides were created between philosophy/theology, ancient/modern, natural philosophy/science, academic/non-academic, philosophy/scientific psychology (cf. Piaget's important book on _Insights and illusions of philosophy_). The continental/analytic divide emerges from a background of robust national philosophical traditions in France, England, Scotland, Germany, as an outgrowth of Protestant religious freedom. In Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Poland, etc. philosophy, particularly of the Enlightenment type, which had a popular genre, remained a rather risky activity. Latin remained a common language till the late XIXth century, but was gradually overtaken by French, English, and even German. All of this affected communication. It's fair to assume that Kant remained unintelligible to most people even after having been translated. This linguistic divide was compounded by national prejudices, conflicts, hatreds, wars, not to forget attempted cultural (mis)appropriations. The history of philosophy isn't such a pretty harmonious story and who knows if it'll have a happy ending at all. One possible definition of philosophy is that it's a risky attempt by individuals or small groups of people to reflect about their own condition and their relation to humanity as a whole. That's what gives it a universal flavor that transcends other genres. But the analytic/continental divide arose within academic philosophy, which is itself product of the exoteric/esoteric, the divides, and is moreover t(a)inted by Anglophone perceptions and anxieties regarding philosophy of a general, speculative, foreign origin. Last but not least, it's important to note that, during my undergrad years in the late 1980's, Rorty, Habermas, Ricoeur, Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre, Searle, and several other philosophers did what they could to build a bridge between these two camps. From what I can gather watching Ellie's video, their efforts do not seem to have succeeded in changing the landscape of academic philosophy in the US. Tristan Torriani

[robertalenrichter]

As a layperson living in Berlin, this surprised me because I had a naive notion that analytical philosophy had been superseded. Had no idea that it is so well entrenched over there in the US. Even hearing "Continental Philosophy" described as a "sub-discipline" seems strange, given that Analytical is a smaller slice of the length and breadth of philosophical thought! Concerning the NYT, I subscribe because it only costs 4 euros, but the cultural pages are mostly just about entertainment nowadays. Philosophy is too highbrow. Speaking of dumbing down, I read recently that currently only 4% of American degrees are in the humanities. And, in the UK, funding for the arts has been slashed by 50%, while universities are being forced to justify courses that aren't a form of job-training. Germany and France, countries where post-secondary education is still free, have seen no such consolidation. Thus, it could be argued that there is an Anglo-American, continental divide in more ways than one -- though, what underlies the contrast is a difference of...philosophy.

[a.e.jabbour]

Thank you, so much! I really hope that you feel that for people like me -- completely uneducated in the field(s) of philosophy -- what a difference these pieces make. I may not have understood whole swaths of what you were discussing. But I came out, in the end, where I could AT LEAST describe to someone some of the fundamental differences between Continental and Analytic Philosophies are, and why they may be that way.

Again, thank you. :)

[sargantfrosty]

Great vid. Please make that vid about your ideas on how to overcome the divide! Enjoyed your "insider baseball" talk about academic philosophy and would like to see more

[obakengafrica]

I got more than what I was expecting from this video. This is so life-giving.

[danopticon]

I posted an off-the-cuff comment about driving myself nuts looking at your bookshelf and trying to identify the Routledge logo … and I’ve just realized—as I listen to your presentation for the THIRD time—that I was remiss in not also commenting on *how much I learned from this presentation!! and how utterly I’ve enjoyed it!!* I studied heaps of continental philosophy in college, and although my goal was to study the social sciences (which is where I also kinda wound up working … for a time … albeit not in a prestigious think tank, or foundation, or government office, but in social science’s slutty little popper-huffing brother: market research) my fondest academic memories are all either of reading history or of reading philosophy, or else of writing papers on either philosophy or political science. So I’m really glad you’ve reawakened these long-dormant feelings of being both curious about the world and actively engaged with it. I know from my friends in academia that it’s gotten super corporate, and kinda intellectually unrewarding (unless you try _really really hard_ to fight the ennui), but gadzooks, does your channel ever make me want to figure out the finances and give grad school a try. Anywho. Thanks so much for uploading these talks!

[hotgaljolene]

In short: British people wanted to show how much they where not like (mainly )French and German people (except Wittgenstein, Frege and their followers, they can stay)
Its really odd how continental phil is significantly more popular than analytic phil, angsty teenagers all over the world read Kierkegaard and you can find copies of Gender Trouble in the dorms of queer people in just about every large city. Good luck finding many people reading Quine or Kripke for their own pleasure in the same way.
Anyways I hope I live to see the divide being overcome, would love to see genuine comparative studies between Carnap and Deleuze for example. With both of them insisting that having a kind of creation / creativity is the most important part of philosophy (for Carnap conceptual engineering and for Deleuze concept creation) also with both of them at times doing that through math in some very interesting ways.

[thoughtotherwise]

This was great! I really enjoyed this, especially the parts where some of your frustrations shone through. You mentioned something about us needing to be strategic in mobilizing the term. I'd like to hear more about that.

[zal]

a) This is so good--thank you for doing public philosophy like this
b) I kept getting distracted looking at what's on your bookshelf! Solid selections
c) I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the colonization (for lack of a better word) of some continental figures by analytic philosophers. E.g. I know there's now a mini-industry of analytical philosophers studying Nietzsche

[Ay_e_sha]

Would definitely appreciate more specific videos on - Methods in Continental Philosophy.

P.S: Really learnt a lot from this video. Thanks for your work.

[anaclaramendesrezende]

18:56 - "Continental methods by contrast recognize that intuitions say more about the accepted parameters of thought whitin a given context than they do about truth". This is why I love studying "continental philosophy" although my field is within the "analytical" umbrella.

[CyraNoavek]

Thank you for explaining all this. It is such a privilege to hear you explain these things. I do think truth is a correspondence and sometimes the thing is mysterious and beautiful.

[MegaCatkitty]

I graduated from Emory’s undergraduate program in 2019 & I found what you said about continental philosophy being an area of thought which is forced to be translated particularly resonant. I majored in Political Science & Spanish and found that my philosophy classes in political science were really analytical (though I didn’t know what that meant) & that my during my classes in Spanish we would discuss the same philosophers but in ways I had never before encountered. For instance, I had never heard the term hegemony used in my political science classes, but in my Spanish classes I found the language (through Gramsci) to critique political systems in ways that were more powerful than the “empirical methods” deployed by the political science department. In turn, I ended up finding the Spanish classes more rewarding as every piece felt deeply connected- maybe this is because I was encouraged to read much more. As I was graduating, my roomate (who majored in philosophy) asked who Derrida was & I was really confused because he had studied Hegel & Foucault & Rawls but had spent very little time with post-structuralist philosophers.

[elahltob]

thank you for this video honestly. i’m a South African philosophy student and i’ve barely had the words to articulate how much of this divide is present within our philosophy department in my varsity. i’ve only been studying for 2 years and i can already tell just how deeply embedded this appeal to analytic philosophy is within the whole of philosophy as a field of knowledge.

for most of my course there has been this rigorous methodology of analysing logical propositions and attempting to translate what continental philosophers have argued in their ideologies. i’ve often asked questions relating to the context behind the philosophers we’re studying (who have mostly been white males) and been told that it’s not entirely relevant and would make philosophy political. i honestly think that helps us more than we realise. but then again, i’m studying anthropology so i guess that’s what gives me space as a continental philosopher to really understand my personal philosophy.

overall i really appreciate this breakdown. i understand that i’m not alone in what i see and that there’s so much more work to do in how we address bureaucratisation and the dismissal of cultural dominance within the field of philosophy. your work is brilliant and important!

[MartB]

Thanks for this video - I found really helpful. I'm just just a philosophy hobbyist (not the most satisfactory way of describing what I mean, but can't think of anything better - I love reading philosophy but don't have the inclination or time to formally study it), and I find it really helpful to have a clearly described non-combative comparison between "continental" and analytic philosophy. I find Wittgenstein insightful and meaningful, but with a huge emphasis/leaning on being definitive, solved, and black and white. The strict requirement of "making sense" can become so limiting if you are unwilling to explore shades in between for insisting on certainty. If I leaned anywhere, in terms of a preferred read, it would be on the continental side. Some of the sections of Being and Time really chime with me in terms of my experience of living (being!) in the world, and I would presume that this would be one of the exemplar pieces of "gibberish" from the viewpoint of an analytical philosopher! But love to explore philosophy as a whole - and this channel is a good learning tool for me!

[artlessons]

Dr. Anderson has a great reservoir of words and presents them like a conductor knowing every note of the symphony. I, the elder statesman here ( retired art teacher nearing seventy), always looked at philosophy as being a war with words finding it no coincidence the word is contained in the word sword. She energetcally uses words as her sword and can clash swords with anybody to present her point. What is admirable about it is that it is learned rather than intuitive. Indeed, a paradigmn for students to follow.
On a philosophical note, I may be overthinking here; but I observed that Dr. Anderson, I is in keeping with her area of specialty, being that of Derrida. Meaning the presentation follows the Derrida model ( not concept), where a binary is presented where the lesser is favoured over, the more popular reigning hierarchy. This is through the deconstructive process.

[capneyeball]

Thank you Dr. Anderson. I am a molecular biologist and my limited training In philosophy consists of the likes of Bertrand Russell and Noem Chomsky.
I look forward to diving into the books that you’ve recommended. I just got Beyond Good and Evil from the library.
You rock 😊

[Picklesfamily]

I love watching these. This seemed very much from the heart; Thankyou.