If you roam the halls of The Heritage Foundation, perhaps the leading conservative think-tank, you will find proclamations like this:
In the West now we find many intellectuals who take part against the intellect. If you want an example, look at Richard Rorty [...] Consider his philosophy of anti-foundationalism. There is no foundation to things discoverable by the intellect, and no foundation to the things that we believe, no reason to believe them; they're mere assertions. And being mere assertions, they're ultimately political assertions. Activating your intellect, using your bean, doesn't help. It doesn't change anything.
Seems to exemplify their philosophical side, and not something a 2008 "continental" philosopher would say. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of 2008 analytic philosophers in academia are stalwart liberals (I could be wrong); but this doesn't mean there is some balance of analytic and non-analytic philosophers in the conservative world.
Another case is Alvin Plantinga (some consider him to be the leading conservative philosopher of religion and critic of Darwinism from an analytic-philosophical framework) in Christianity Today: [R]eligion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.
On Francis Fukuyama (some tout him as a "continental" conservative, or postmodern conservative, or something like that — which sounds to me like being a gay Catholic — I'm sure there are some around): He writes in Newsweek Oct 13, 2008: It's hard to fathom just how badly these signature features of the American brand have been discredited. Between 2002 and 2007, while the world was enjoying an unprecedented period of growth, it was easy to ignore those European socialists and Latin American populists who denounced the U.S. economic model as "cowboy capitalism." But now the engine of that growth, the American economy, has gone off the rails and threatens to drag the rest of the world down with it. Worse, the culprit is the American model itself: under the mantra of less government, Washington failed to adequately regulate the financial sector and allowed it to do tremendous harm to the rest of the society.
Perhaps he can find redemption.
Your piece has led me to think of writing something — I'll post a link to a post on my blog this weekend maybe — where I will tie up politics with analytic, continental, postmodern, postanalytic philosophy in one neat bundle [yea, right].
For now, here is a Friday funny:
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida...a/img/
steve.gif
by Steve Bell (The Guardian, 1992)
It's on that silly letter with Quine's name on it wanting Cambridge University to vote down offering Derrida an honorary degree.
(I was going to mention with the Plantinga quote — he was being sarcastic — that he and Richard Dawkins are bedfellows in a way: They both hate postmodernism.)
i don't buy the political distinction philo seems to want to make here and elsewhere about the analytic/continental traditions*--and i think s/he's just wrong to characterize plantinga as a 'conservative' philosopher of religion just because a.p. thinks that dawkins' polemic is flawed--but i'm curious. let's presume that the distinction philo wants to make is accurate. what's riding on it? what's the point? what explanatory value does it have?
________
*a distinction, by the way, that while popular is as over-worked, to my mind, as the rationalist/ empiricist one used to be.
The Heritage Foundation and CATO folks are not enamored of analytic philosophy. They are committed to the most naive version of Enlightenment thought, it is the bedrock of their free market classical liberalism idolatry. They need for sociology to cease to exist and for us to be rational ping pong balls open to psychological laws that are the equivalent of Newton's laws of motion -- predictable, rational, and purely self-interested. This is not the foundation of analytic philosophy, this is the 17th and 18th century stuff of an impoverished reading of Smith.
Analytic philosophy is based upon the question of rational theory change. It is largely a reaction to the rise of non-Euclidean geometry and Einstein's theory of relativity. How do we go about reconstructing all of our beliefs based on observation in a way that the fundamental lens through which we make sense of the world can be changed by the observations we make through the old lens.
If I were to label myself, it would be postanalytic.
Your definition of "analytic philosophy" seems to be narrower than that used in talking informally about the analytic/continental "divide".
But I am fascinated by how Rorty and others in his "camp" (whatever that is) became such a conservatives' punching bag.
BTW bloggers might check out
http://www.typealyzer.com/
Philosophers' Playground was
The Thinkers: The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.
They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.
(hmm)
Mine was
The Visionaries: The charming and trend savvy type. They are especially attuned to the big picture and anticipate trends. They often have sophisticated language skills and come across as witty and social. At the end of the day, however, they are pragmatic decision makers and have a good analytical abilitity.
They enjoy work that lets them use their cleverness, great communication skills and knack for new exciting ventures. They have to look out not to become quitters, since they easily get bored when the creative exciting start-up phase is over.
(not bad 
)
wrong to characterize plantinga as a 'conservative' philosopher of religion?
In http://
www.faithandphilosophy.co...icle_advice.php
Plantinga touts:
Christianity, these days, and in our part of the world, is on the move, There are many signs pointing in this direction: the growth of Christian schools, of the serious conservative Christian denominations ...
Philo:
Okay, in the first place: unless I'm totally misreading you, you're now equivocating with the word "conservative." I took your use of the word in this string and in earlier ones to mean "political conservatism." Now, in your response to me, you seem to have switched to "religious conservatism."
In the second place: Plantinga is mainstream in his (Reformed) theology. Normally when one talks about "conservative" theology, the referent is right-wing evangelical--and that Plantinga most definitely isn't. His teaching at (Roman Catholic) Notre Dame and his cerebral approach to analyzing naturalism make him immediately suspicious to the James Dobsons of the world.
In the third place: the snippet from the link you quote is ambiguous. Is Plantinga lauding the spread of "conservative Christianity," or is he merely announcing it as fact? Certainly the rest of the piece (in which, by the way, he rips a new one for positivism) doesn't praise conservative Christianity. His point is that Christian philosophers should recognize that they philosophize within a specific worldview. One is perfectly free either to disagree with what Plantinga says, or to think that the Christian worldview is horseshit. But merely holding the worldview doesn't make one conservative (religiously or politically).
Finally: again, what's riding on this distinction that you want to make? That was my original question.
Finally: again, what's riding on this distinction that you want to make? That was my original question.
A blog post to respond to SteveG's post of which this is a comment to.
That's about it.
(Also, I have not been making any analytic/continental, conservative/liberal parallel. Remember I wrote:
"I am fairly certain that the vast majority of [today's] analytic philosophers in academia are stalwart liberals.")
Phil: you haven't?! Then you're just too subtle for me. I thought that's precisely what you were doing today, as well as in your comments to SteveG's November 13th post.
Nope.
Analytic philosophy is based upon the question of rational theory change.
This seems to be a better description of Logical Positivism, and the reaction to it, and not Analytic Philosophy in general. That is better characterized as focusing philosophical attention of the proper (logical) analysis of language, the positivists being one of several trends in Analytic phil. Russell's "On Denoting" has nothing to do with rational theory change, for example. Nor does the Tractatus, for that matter.
This truly is a confusing piece about analyticals and continentals, as well as the explanation of mathematics and science challenging the old world of nationalism and superstition.
Mathematics and science more rule the world culture today than nationalism and superstition. And the name we have given this new order is 'globalization'.
Everything that transpired before occurred to give us the world of today, mainly secular and globalized. Is globalization an analytical phenomenon or a continental one? I suspect it is a bit of both.
analytics are the logic nerds and the continentals are the ones wearing black and getting dates
I was thinking of this over lunch as I was looking at the pictures of Heritage Foundation experts (I noted that one of Cristine Kim's areas of expertise was abstinence.) Only one of the guys not wearing a ties. (His area of expertise was Asia and the Pacific.) But I didn't get the idea that someone carrying around a copy of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature would feel welcome there.
Then I looked at the pictures of the experts at the Center for American Progress. Overall, a bit scruffier, er casual, lot. Quite a few of the guys not wearing ties. Maybe there is something to this.
How do we go about reconstructing all of our beliefs based on observation in a way that the fundamental lens through which we make sense of the world can be changed by the observations we make through the old lens.
What if there were no lens at all?
Is globalization an analytical phenomenon or a continental one? I suspect it is a bit of both.
That is a good point. Maybe it's a corporate vs. grassroots globalization divide.
I always thought it was far simpler than this. Continentals are the ones who enjoy making up words, and laugh at the Analytics who then try to understand those words. It's like a game of scrabble, but you sort of make up the rules as you go along. The Analytics are constantly trying to update and revise the pocket dictionary, but the Continentals keep messing with it the whole time.
Whoa, was I ever off the mark.
/scratches head
Instead of having those conferences (ANALYTIC VERSUS CONTINENTAL? RAPPROCHEMENT?) A MINI-CONFERENCE departments could have softball or basketball games with the ANALYTICS vs. the CONTINENTALS teams (ya gotta pick a side).
Except the Continentals would probably always be late for the game, etc.
myself: Your piece has led me to think of writing something. I'll post a link to a post on my blog this weekend maybe ...
and this is that.
"Maybe it's a corporate vs. grassroots globalization divide."
I am thinking 'corporate' is continental and grass roots analytical.
Christopher Columbus was in the realm of continental. His discovery of the New World was an expansion of continental philosophy. That discovery was somewhat a corporate event, expanding the corporation of Europe, which enabled today's globalization and its corporatism.
This is an interesting post and needs further examination because of what it freely assumes.
For instance, "In Germany, which was on the cultural ascendant, the failure of the Wiemar government was widely taken as a sign that liberal, free market approach was bankrupt. Something new needed to take its place to prevent what just happened."
Who understood that the collapse of the Weimar Republic represented the bankruptcy of the liberal, free market approach (Perhaps in hindsight). Why, it was hardly that the Weimar government practices liberal democracy. If it had it is most like Hitler would not have gotten his foot in the door.
The claim is that it was taken by many Germans that the liberal free market approach was a failure, not that it actually was a liberal free market approach. Both the left and the right, the Nazi's and the Communists, making up 2/3's of the population certainly regarded it as such. By the collapse of Weimar, the middle third was not beholden to it either, making it easy for them to make a deal with the right.
In any case, it is doubtful that a liberal free market approach (or any other for that matter) would help Germany after the war. The reparation payments were too great, and the nation was economically devastated by the war.
But it is wholly unclear other than ideology what would make anyone assert that "If it had it is most like Hitler would not have gotten his foot in the door." This seems to assume that any true liberal, free market oriented policy would be so successful that the radical right would not get its foot in the door. Since the economic turmoil of the '20's and 30's destroyed liberal free market approaches everywhere, I do not see why that claim is true.
You are right about the reparation that was imposed on Germany. But you are assuming that what Weimar Germany was practicing between the wars was a liberal free market. If it was it was an infant liberal free market that had not yet developed into the complex system it is today, which couldn't withstand being hijacked.
I think you are suggesting that the liberal free market has developed today in such a way as to allow right wing ideologues to get their foot in the door and take it over. Well, they (Bush&Co.) did get their foot in the door and did hijacked it. But the system today is bigger than them and essentially kicked them and their ideology out the door, unlike in the 30's when the liberal free market was not strong enough to stop the Nazis and their ideology.
Liberal free market (read liberal democracy) has suffered from whiplash recently. But I think in theory it is mutually beneficial, utilitarian and thus here to stay.
If the antecedent in the claim ""If it had it is most like Hitler would not have gotten his foot in the door" referred to a modern developed free market with oversight, then I would like to agree, but I fear history plays tricks with claims like that. Its like "we have enough controls to keep our economy from slipping into another great depression," and pointing to 60 years without a depression. But these events are not so common for us to understand the conditions required, and hence the variables are not well enough understood. I would like to agree that we have enough controls... but we could be wrong. Same with right wing dictatorships. Now I certainly do not see any on the horizon, but that is no guarantee.
But if the it referred to a developing free market/liberal ideology, it seems unlikely to avoid the kind of economic and political turmoil that made the likes of Hitler possible, especially given the reparations. Many developing free market/liberal oriented ideologies collapse in the face of the turmoil the system, in part, fosters ("creative destruction" is I believe the favorite phrase, and one easy to hijack by capitalists as well as by anti-capitalists.) Russia, for instance.
But Steve's main claim is that, no matter what the facts, in the 20's and 30's, it economic collapse was perceived to be caused by liberal democracy and free market ideologies. Hitler certainly blamed Germany's woes upon that, and 1/3 agreed with him. The Communists did as well, and 1/3 agreed with them, and the capitalists made a deal with the Nazis, though their motives are still subject to historical interpretation. In any case, the capitalists abandoned liberal ideology, too.
Just because Russia failed at the liberal free market, like you mentioned, that is no indictment of its viability. For one thing, Russia, like Weimar Germany, did not adopt or understand all the trappings of the liberal free market, such as the 'rule of law'.
The West has taken centuries to cultivate and learn liberal free market principles. One shouldn't expect countries that have never done it before to pick it up just like that.
Capitalism has recently gone through a bad patch, like it has in the past. But it is its 'creative destruction' that renews it and its agitating forces that fosters the open society which keeps dictatorships at bay.
SteveG: Analytic philosophy is based upon the question of rational theory change. It is largely a reaction to the rise of non-Euclidean geometry and Einstein's theory of relativity.
"But what if Einstein got it wrong?"
I was in a bookstore yesterday and saw the recently published Reinventing Gravity by John Moffat.
I would like to know. That there could be dark matter out there keeps me awake at night.
Airth - which was exactly my point. You claimed if Germany had adopted a liberal free market structure, then there would have been no Hitler. At the very least, that is a claim that needs defense, for it seems false. And it seemed to rest on the idea that you simply plant the right ideas, and the right outcome is guaranteed. But there are historical contexts that cannot be ignored... features of the soil, if you will, that allow the tree to grow.
I am not claiming that liberal free market structures do not work. That is a different discussion.
One statement that seems over the top in the above article is "What had been thought of as art, music, and architecture had been destroyed".
Some may have felt that way after the destructive devastation of WW1. But the art, music and architecture that existed prior to the war exists today. So do ideas, one being that the people of the world could one day learn to coexist in a relative peace. That idea is more plausible today than ever before.
This post mentioned the continentals of the Frankfurt School. The critical theory of the school was Adorno’s “crossing of Marx and Freud”. A member of the school, Horkheimer asked, “who will replace the proletariat as the agent of revolution”. (Obviously it was a concern that the proletariat would not always be the revolutionists.) Another member, Marcuse, answered, “ a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women, homosexuals and other socially marginal elements” will carry it on. Marcuse overlooked consumers.
Those revolutionists that Marcuse listed have been the revolutionaries within liberal free market societies. They have been the ones who have kept the liberal free market open, vital, legitimate and relevant. These materialists, along with their proletariat comrades, have also been the wedges behind the revolutions that have altered authoritarian regimes, on their trajectory towards being open societies, which Popper crusaded for. They are the materialists who are demanding and causing change in countries like China.
Those revolutionists that Marcuse foresaw are the revolutionists that have transformed America since the 1950’s, through the civil rights movement to the environmental movement. The civil rights revolutionists made the election of Barack Obama possible.
Where do the analyticals fit in all this. They are the ones who have forced us to reflect on our activism, I figure.
Commenting by HaloScan
