Continental philosophy and analytic philosophy.

You need to get good at one of them to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Literally took you longer to make this thread.

>>8643243
There is no comparison here.

There's a decent comparison somewhere on the Stanford wiki.

Also, don't believe the /lit/ memes, there's no "conflict", it's just two different approaches loosely packed into schools.

Continental and analytic philosophy mostly differ in their points of origin. Each has various points of origin, some of which are still the "ground" on which their philosophers are studying and speaking today, but some other ones have died, at which point their philosophers migrated to and were absorbed by other, similar grounds (after pruning the totally incommensurable bits) with similar architectonics and overlapping fundamental assumptions.

Many people will point to contemporary philosophers who do both analytic and continental philosophy, the vast majority of them don't. It was even worse until a few decades ago, when the traditions were even more isolated, by the simple fact that there were maybe two guys in Germany who had been trained in analytic philosophy to the point that they could be called native sons of it, and who then bothered to go back to Germany where a relative minority of people would be interested in their minority views, let alone interested enough to study under them seriously enough to meaningfully take on analytic worldviews. The same is true with the players arranged for nearly any country, except maybe the United States which had a little more variety because it was open to grabbing scholars from all over, and many were happy to flee the old world.

The real analytic-continental divide isn't proved or disproved by asking whether Rorty knows Kant well, or whatever. It's proved by the fact that while this situation has lessened, it's still going pretty strong. Even if you leave off the hardcore logicians, Anglosphere analytics still mostly read analytic texts and only regard continentals as curiosities or auxiliaries, and vice versa. Analytics are still mostly coming from the base worldviews of logicial and scientific positivism, very postmetaphysical, classical interpretations of Wittgenstein, pragmatism, and continentals are still hugely influenced by German Idealism and Marxism, structuralism and poststructuralism.

You can find exceptions and mixtures all you want. Germans like Pragmatism for some reason. But if you talk to any middle-aged or venerable old German philosopher raised in Germany, you will get a taste for what it's like for a mind to be raised STRONGLY within one intellectual tradition. They are Idealists even when they try not to be. They're also much more deferential to living but old masters, because of various cultural and administrative features of their academia.

If you want to understand the differences you have to learn enough about each tradition to palpate its underlying impulses and worldviews. The funny thing is, to do that, you're going to have to read a lot of either, by which time you will likely have fallen into one or the other camp and come to regard the other as weird.

>>8643219
>Analytic
Basically fedora autism with a superiority complex.
>Continental
For the true Ubermensch.

Continental is penile while Analytic is anal.

File: nick land.gif (71KB, 480x319px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 480x319px

Some philosophers can be considered parts of both traditions, such as Nick Land

Continental philosophy is like a beautiful orchid, analytical philosophy is like deep-space Linux.

>>8643259
First, continental philosophers generally reject the view that the natural sciences are the only or most accurate way of understanding natural phenomena. This contrasts with many analytic philosophers who consider their inquiries as continuous with, or subordinate to, those of the natural sciences. Continental philosophers often argue that science depends upon a "pre-theoretical substrate of experience" (a version of Kantian conditions of possible experience or the phenomenological "lifeworld") and that scientific methods are inadequate to fully understand such conditions of intelligibility.[6]

>>8643219
Turth is, that analytical philospohy dosen't excist anymore. It was the project by russel, whitehead, frege and others(mostly mathematicans) to create a ideal language of logic. This project was given up and this was the end, but some philosphers still claim to be analytical philosophers to artificaly make them something special, with a conection to mathematics and logic, which the don't have.

>>8643653
what?

>>8643479
so continentals literally make shit up about "pre-theoretical" (not even a real thing) to justify their existence

>>8643663
Try to elaborate a more specific question.

>>8643219
They aren't in a conflict primarily because there's no such thing as continental philosophy.
We can speak of analytics which is largely the method used and focus on certain areas, but even within it we cannot speak of a single tradition.
Frege and Anscombe are both 'analytics', but that doesn't really tell you that much.
Continental philosophy is an even more nonsensical group which contains Nietzsche and Aquinas in it, how, only Russell knows.

>>8643668
You don't understand it, for any Weltanschauung in existence you have to except certain premises (vulgar: make "shit" up).