How they ruined philosophy | Babich, Schönbaumsfeld, Schuringa

Quick Overview

The primary outcome of the discussion is a strong disagreement regarding the claim that analytical philosophy is inherently boring, with participants arguing that its commitment to clarity and rigor, despite being sometimes associated with jargon or perceived as less exciting than continental philosophy, is actually beneficial and necessary for rigorous philosophical inquiry.

Key Points: Babette Babich strongly disagrees with the claim that analytical philosophy is boring, asserting that its commitment to clarity and rigor across different areas is valuable. Babich points out that her own education required reading original Greek texts (like Aristotle) and that she switched to philosophy of science after realizing the necessity of such rigor, contrasting it with the perceived lack of rigor in some continental philosophy. Christoph Schuringa argues that analytical philosophy often presents itself with a special commitment to clarity and rigor, but this can lead to arguments resting on unexamined intuitions or repetitive jargon. Schuringa notes that many highly influential analytical philosophers, such as Wittgenstein and David Lewis, have roots in Continental European culture (Viennese/Germanic), suggesting a shared historical background. The panelists generally agree that while analytical philosophy's commitment to rigor is good, the associated jargon and potential for unexamined assumptions (like relying on 'intuitions') can make it seem unexciting or difficult to engage with. Genia Schönbaumsfeld confirms that she saw a positive difference when her department hired analytical philosophers who were willing to engage in clear, rigorous work, contrasting this with the perceived lack of clarity in some continental approaches.

Context: This video captures a panel discussion featuring four philosophers: Babette Babich (Continental philosopher), Genia Schönbaumsfeld (Professor of philosophy), Christoph Schuringa (Professor of German philosophy), and Danielle Sands (Host). The central theme revolves around the perceived difference between analytical and continental philosophy, specifically addressing the common assertion that analytical philosophy is 'boring' and questioning whether its purported commitment to clarity and rigor is genuinely upheld or if it suffers from its own forms of jargon and unexamined assumptions.