Aug 25th, 2006 by ravi
Defining “non”-analytical philosophy

Leiter reports has a guest blog entry by Jason Stanley, that provides a fair[er] definition of that type of philosophy that is not considered "analytical":

Soames attempts to make this distinction when he writes that analytic philosophy is characterized by “an elevation of the goals of truth and knowledge over inspiration, moral uplift, and spiritual comfort”. I reject Soames’s categorization, because it makes it sound like the options are to seek truth and knowledge or to find religion. I would rather mark it as the quite different distinction between, on the one hand, philosophy that treats phenomena apart from their cultural and historical context, versus philosophy that looks at phenomena mainly through an anthropological lens.

[ link ]

Read the full post and comments »

Read Comments and Respond

One Response

  • Doyle Saylor says:

    Western Analytical philosophy is tied to text based ‘reason’. Truth or knowledge are distorted from how human beings use them.

    Information production that more closely follows daily life, perhaps one could think of that being video like in use like a language, the more important that the person ‘feel’ the reality of their daily life. Text poorly displays such information.

    One can’t walk down the street assuming one can use words to guide steps. Nobody has the verbal skills to do that. Real time information requires we know quite a bit very quickly, per milliseconds.

    Proper integration of such information directly attacks a ‘knowledge’ regime based upon text or talk.

  • Pages