What exactly defines Continental philosophy?

>>9966779
But the fourth point is completely unnecessary, as the success of the natural sciences did not supplant or eliminate philosophy. Just look at the philosophy of science, particularly of physics, in the analytic tradition. If anything, science and philosophy are continuous. Continental reevaluation isn't necessary

People won't like this, but IMO continental philosophy's defining trait is that it's written as a game – it's completely involuted and obsessed with its own tradition, and the idea is to come up with cleverer and cleverer ways of subverting that tradition, deconstructing it and rebuilding it, over and over again. Continental philosophy has no content or purpose outside of this self-referential academic game. It's like a heat sink for intelligence, a high form of mental athleticism.

>>9966904

I feel that reevaluation is necessary in terms of morality and ethics in philosophy. I do agree though that maybe metaphysical philosophers post Kant can get a little tedious though

>>9966991

isn't putting kierkegaard with derrida under a blanket term like "continental" kind of reductive? i feel that though both are abstract one is looking for clarity (kierkegaard) and one is abstract clarity (derrida)

>>9967104
Kierkegaard is an interesting case – I'd more put him with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, smart guys with profound personal problems that they tried to project onto philosophy. I think that they, unlike most continentals, had external impetuses for their engaging in philosophy (albeit relatively solipsistic ones limited to their own emotional life).

Not to say that someone like Derrida isn't sublimating his feelings of exclusion in his libidinal anger against dichotomies. But he, I feel, is completely within 'the game' – continental philosophy says, 'there is nothing outside the text.' The tradition has no external impetuses, it's it's own self-caused and self-generating reason for existing.

Kierkegaard predates this complete envelopment, which is presaged in Kant and especially Hegel.

File: hnr.png (116KB, 574x562px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 574x562px

>>9966754
>Exactly
There's your problem, pal. Philosophers don't give a fuck about exactitude in that sort of definitions.

>>9966904
Your lack of kantism is showing. If you think philosophy should restrict itself to the narrow aspects of thinking that can be progressive, then you're missing the interesting and important parts. Non-objective thinking is the most relevant to continental philosophy and its repercussions on scientific thinking or
>continuous philosophy
must be studied.
History is not a sequence of causes and consecuences. Neither a chronological compilation of facts.
You need more romanticism in your life.

none of the things you listed are comprehensive of analytic philosophy as a real, historical set of texts and figures. "Analysis" doesn't mean anything by itself, and conciseness and logic/mathematics are pretty irrelevant to a huge portion of analytic philosophy.