quarta-feira, dezembro 28, 2005

Ser filósofo analítico já passou de moda.

Tadeusz Szubka: At the end of your recent paper you ponder the question if analytic philosophy should continue, and suggest that in current times we should rather be philosophers without adjective. However, the rift between analytic and continental philosophy refuses to disappear. Do you think it will ever disappear?

Hilary Putnam: I did not mean that philosophical disagreement should cease -that would be the end of philosophy, indeed of independent thinking and reflection, but I am disturbed by the idea of a group which labels itself "analytic philosohy". In practice that group tends to be exclusionary (to look down on all but a certain number of English-speaking philosophers). Moreover, what is the basis of unity of this group? Not a common method, and certainly not common views, but only a self-congratulatory claim that "We are CLEAR and the others are FUZZY". (Not only is analytic philosophy often far from clear, but the assumption that everything worth saying can be said clearly has never, to my knowledge, beed ARGUED for. I don't think it is self evident; in fact, I don't think it is true.

"Postado" pelo próprio Cão

2 comentários:

CP disse...

Ou seja mais vale trabalhar por ser apenas filósofo e evitar estas rixas!
(é claro que foram os continentais que começaram com a guerra mas enfim...) :P

Pedro Sargento disse...

receio bem que esta resposta não desarme os "analíticos", mas eles bem a merecem...