Well, AP is _now_ just clear thinking, but it is so in a certain tradition, the one I described in my posts that derives from Russell and Wittgenstein, the positivists, Quine, etc. AP is self-defined in part by reference to others who refer to these writers and each other. So, for example, I write a paper on Davidson, Fodor, Churchland, and Feyerabend on the reduction on the menatl to the physical. These writers respond to each others arguments,w ent to or teach at the sane schools, studied with the same people, develop a common way of talking. they don't often refer to Heidegger or Habermas, etc., who have the same sort of community with a tradition that derives from Hegel and Husserl. So it's sociological. A lot of continental philosophy does pretty much satisfy analytical standards of clarity and precision: Merleau Ponty, for example, is functionally an analytical philosopher. Much of it does not: Heidegger is often wilfully obscure (though very great), but much analytical philosophy, much good analytical philosophy, falls short. Sellars is a _terrible_ writer. No one can figure out what Davidson means. Quine's central thesis of the indeterminacy of translation is a mystery after these 40 years. I am not an AP snob, unlike many trained in the AP tradition. Probably my favorite philosopher (I don;t count Marx as a philosopher) is Hegel. I respect the greatness of Heidegger, etc. But unless I do what APs do as fara s explicating what I am trying to say as clearly as I can, I have no idea what I think, including about Hegel. I really have no idea what else could count as having an idea than doing with it what an AP would do with it. This is a limitation of mine, perhaps. I recognize that Heidegger had a rather different notion. (I am not sure, actually, that Hegel did.) But I cannot emulate what Heidegger did, although I can respect it. In any case I think that now the difference between AP and CP is sociological. Btw the best CP done in the US is done in AP departments. You want to study Nietzsche, read (or study with) Richard Schacht or Maudmarie Clarke; Hegel, read Robert Pippin or Terry Pinckard; Heidegger, read Hubery Dreyfus or Hans Sluga. The mainly self-identified CP departments like SUNY Stony Brook are nowhere near this level in their own advertised specialities. --jks In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 1:35:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << At 06:00 PM 7/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >There are no [analytical philosophy] figures of the stature of Russell or >Wittgenstein, or even Quine or Sellars. The field is treading water. This >is not just the case with analytical philosophy. "Contintental" philosophy >isn't going anywhere either. I mean, postmodernism? Give me a break. It's clear that the only way one can define "analytical philosophy" [AP] is _relative to_ other schools. Obviously, one can't define AP simply as clear thinking (as Justin seems to do) since all other schools claim to be clear thinkers, too. So how does AP _differ_ from continental philosophy, e.g., someone like Habermas? (I think we can skip postmodernism.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine >>
