I was just reading this Philosophy Now article:
“Analytic Philosophy, Continental Literature?”
Marc Champagne argues that the supposedly ’professional’ style of the analytic tradition does not ensure professionalism, nor indeed, clear-mindedness.
In it, I came upon this passage:
And, sure, the manner in which I construe the meaning of the small-d “dasein” in my signature thread is probably construed by many “serious philosophers” as mediocre at best. While even a heavyweight thinker like Heidegger can be mocked in one or another “intellectual contraption” of this sort.
But: “being” here is just that. An “intellectual contraption” word that in no way, shape or form relates to the lives that we actually live.
Right?
Again, I am less concerned with whether as an intellectual contraption, this is funny or not. If you harbor a sufficient enough disdain for “continental philosophy”, it’s probably hilarious.
But what do the analytic philosophers have to tell us about any particular “I”, being “here” and not “there”? Being “now” but not “then”? As this relates to the historical, cultural and experiential interactions of flesh and blood human beings?
Instead, all this defender of the continental tradition can do is to take the “debate” back up into the clouds:
And it is certainly my contention that only to the extent that any school of philosophy is able to intertwine words and worlds, is there any possibility to explore in turn the extent to which in using the tools of philosophy we can grope to understand what may well be beyond the reach of “clear-mindedness”.