From the headline, I thought that the article would be some materialist Sam Harris fanboy talking about how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and how science can tell us objective truths about morality. Count me surprised! This writer has great taste. Philosophy and poetry are closely related. Transmission of knowledge is very difficult. People don't learn well through textbooks and diagrams; they learn…
For most people, yes, I'd agree. For me personally, not really. I grasp abstractions and formal stuff almost instantly, but it takes a lot of grappling with the text for me to come to terms with continental philosophy. Like, I had zero trouble with Kant's Critique, but I had to read Discipline and Punish 3 times before I felt like I "got it". NOTE: This doesn't mean I disparage continental philosophy, just noting tha…
I find a big difference between continental philosophers and analytics are the sorts of methods they feel comfortable employing. I find analytics take sequenced, bottom-up, and reductive approaches to explore an issue and try to get at a larger problem.
Continentals contrarily tend to rely on expansion instead of reductions (zooming into complexity instead of temporarily filtering out), approach issues from top-down, and are a bit looser with arrangement and structuring--though do so with particular purpose.
Of course this opposition is forced--plenty of philosophers from each camp mix a variety of methodologies and this binary opposition is itself just a reductive procedure to try to get at some sort of understanding and highlight certain attributes.
What has best helped my reading of philosophy from both sides is focusing on meta-issues; what techniques is this author using, can I create a summary of this, what do I find lacking, where are holes in my understanding, can I frame this person's experience to inform my knowledge of the approach, can I frame their references, what amount of this text is playing to the conventions the audience expects, how should I be changing my reading strategy to best comprehend this text?
Everyone is quick to judge the quality of a writer, yet we are far less reflective when it comes to our performance as readers--which is a shame. I think a lot of understanding is hampered by a lack of concern for one's own reading practices and in general a lack of emphasis on the importance of being a well-behaved reader. The work of a book is a shared struggle. Nietzsche understood this well, and I think his aphorisms on writing and reading are actually some of his best (I suppose that makes sense, given his background as a philologist)
Well, really focusing on meta-issues, my own manners and behavior as a reader, and reading Wittgenstein. Philosophy too, is a game.