Here’s a little quote that I picked up from wiki that I think really is at the center of the problem of contemporary philosophy:
“The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can be achieved only by analysis of the logical form of philosophical propositions. The logical form of a proposition is a way of representing it (often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system), to reduce it to simpler components if necessary, and to display its similarity with all other propositions of the same type. However, analytic philosophers disagree widely about the correct logical form of ordinary language.”
The key problem is “logical form of philosophical propositions”. I suggested in the last post that this problem seems to involve and be addressed by both analytical and continental schools.
We might even see that of late the problem of “correlationalism”, most recently coined by the philosopher Quentin Miellassoux, is the problem that I identify of philosophy; to wit, that regardless of how they want to frame the problem and it’s solution, regardless of how they want to discursively situate such a problem and solution, The method by which they both form the problem and propose to address the solution is essentially the same, ie. The logical form of philosophical propositions.
The simple answer that distinguishes analytical from Continental schools is that a few early 20th century philosophers found it nearly impossible to employ logical distinctions to what we can generally categorize as the Idealists, namely Kant, Hegel, and others. But yet many philosophers that consider themselves of the continental tradition seem to be able to apply a sort of logical analysis of propositional forms to these noted Idealist philosophers. as I said in the earlier post, this shows that there are those who understand and those who don’t.
Due to this we are left with a couple questions that seem never to be asked, and for one we have to ask why is this question never asked. The problem inherent of these questions has to do with, not so much the attack by the analytical’s upon the Idealists– that is fairly clear. One of the questions has to do with the effort involved by the continentals to prove to what we can generalize as analytical’s that there is validity and a veracity of the continental tradition that the former is not understanding; it seems like there’s an incessant effort for those of the continental tradition to prove themselves into the analytical sort. They do this by first arguing amongst themselves incessantly over various terms, which are really logical forms of propositions, but then also on different fronts they take the same discussion and adjust it to the various logical forms of the analytical. the question is: Why are the Continentals thinking they can convince, describe, or otherwise prove to those who don’t understand in a manner that they will understand? I suggest in the earlier post that this is because the basic (conventional) philosophical ideal is that everything is teachable. And the other question, which first must be conditioned by the first question to see that this latter is really a trick question because in is inherent and closely circular so as to throw off investigation into the basis of what might be continental: What is the distinction between Analytical and Continental philosophy?
What? The question that is eternally suspended is what is distinguishing between the analytical in the continental?? Here how it lays out, which really offends and frustrates every sort of philosophy that supposes to be getting somewhere along the same lines (which is why these questions are never asked): The analytical has formed the shape of the problem, and the continentals attempt to argue themselves into that shape. But if we have found anything over the past hundred years it has to be that this effort is failing. We have to then see that what the postmodern really is; It is the general form of apology that functions to decide itself into another analytical form “In itself”. This is where we get the idea that postmodern extrapolations and continuations are so redundant, because they create a situation where by they can argue circularities as if they get somewhere and uncover something, to their by establish a valid form. They argue that discourse is the fundamental (omniscient, omnipotent) determinate of reality; they argue that there is an empty set, that it somehow determines reality through the intuitive involvement with discourse, that this void can never be expounded upon (even while they expound upon what this empty set may be); they even expound upon what may be involved as a constituent of this null set, for example the literate fictional forms that various authors like to talk about involving Lovecraft.
But the fundamental question that is avoided concerns the failure across the analytical and the Continental. The distinction and the difference that was so nobly and magically posited has found its self a seat at the table and is really giving up on anything that can be different or distinguish from what is analytical because in the first place they were always using the analytical model by which to establish themselves as a different philosophical feature.
This is why we say the postmodern is a religious apology for what is the modern. And this is also why we have to say that what is continental has failed, and this is why a divergent version of philosophical discourse arises.
What has occurred in contemporary continental philosophy is that even while they propose to be talking about how to displace the central phenomenalist Cartesian (and whatever other adjectival casual object-state they want to use) subject, or how that might be a faulty conception, they are really talking about how the whole tradition of continental philosophy as a different sort of philosophical emanation it’s self is a faulty conception, and attempting to rectify that the effort they are involved in is an effort founded in fallacy, an idea that was incorrect from its start, insomuch as it supposed to displace what is modern. The blatant and bare fact of the truth of this last statement is that I can use the term ‘modern’ and it still means something. We are still talking about it because through the postmodern we close the loop of the modern real religious justification. We establish a catholic (unitary) foundation for the discussion of a totally and absolute, omnipotent and omni-present, inescapable, real arena.