The youtube channel ‘‘Mon0‘‘ once made a video called: ‘‘An argument against continental philosophy‘‘.
The link to the video is at the bottom of the blog.
Definition of ’‘continental philosophy‘‘:
‘‘Continental philosophy is philosophies prominent in 20th-century continental Europe that derive from a broadly Kantian tradition. Continental philosophy includes German idealism, phenomenology, existentialism (and its antecedents, such as the thought of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche), hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, French feminism, psychoanalytic theory, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as well as some Freudian, Hegelian, and Western Marxist views. Continental philosophy is often contrasted with analytic philosophy‘‘.
The video has a total lenght of 12:28 minutes.
Link to the video:
https://youtu.be/4fJNiPbIbZQ?si=jKw7MvM5atHEo2y1
As always, I hope you liked this blog and feel free to share your opinion on it, if you want to.
Comments (1)
I have thought about this a lot, and I have a mixed view on continental philosophy:
I do think writing vaguely or ambiguously with a somewhat unclear meaning can be a way to simply hide a weakness in argument. But I would like to believe they all have general points behind that vagueness—which makes it mixed. I do believe certain philosophers are utter frauds who hid behind such writing and ambiguity, while others were less frauds but more afraid of being clear.
There are in-between though: think of Nietzsche, who wanted to MAKE YOU think. Ambiguity and interpretation were the backbone of his philosophy. Or Kierkegaard, who emphasized subjectivity.
There is also the sense that ambiguity in writing can be better than clarity. It breeds inspiration for original thought. Hearing someone articulate something in a way that manages to evoke a feeling within you can help you more than an unambiguous argument that is impossible to misinterpret. Clarity is the death of imagination, after all. Plus, they usually have a general gist they cloak under ambiguity which isn’t WHOLLY impossible to penetrate, and that is better than absolutely nothing (like the frauds—whom I believe to be a minority in this case).
Overall, I think continental philosophy can be quite shit—like frauds in the absolute hiding behind ambiguity and evocative writing. But it can also be the POINT of the philosophy or even a muse for higher thinking. I would conclude it is more good than bad: continental philosophy is the more world-changing one after all.