A Plea for Agonism Between Analytic and Continental Philosophy
Robrecht Vanderbeeken
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2011.11003   PDF    HTML     14,414 Downloads   32,671 Views   Citations


Since the rise of analytic philosophy, a virtual Berlin wall seems to be inserted with respect to continental philosophy. If we take into account the difference between both traditions concerning the respective subject-matters, the pivotal goals, the modes of inquiry and scholarship, the semantic idioms, the methodological approaches, the ongoing discussions, the conferences and publications etc., it is hardly an overstatement to say that both traditions evolve insulated and have a conflicting relation. From a meta-philosophical stance, the common and prima facie reply to this split is the encouragement of merging inclinations. I argue for another strategy. Based on a discussion of the intrinsic differences and their importance, I’m inclined to conclude that unification coincides with a loss of authenticity, blurring the critical potential of both traditions. Hence, we are better of endorsing agonistic pluralism between analytic philosophy and contemporary continental philosophy. The plurality of points of view render several opportunities for productive critiques and fruitful cross-overs between both traditions. Alas, the susceptibility for these innovations is vastly counteracted due to a widespread attitude of antipathy, ignorance and occasional vulgarisation.

Share and Cite:

Vanderbeeken, R. (2011). A Plea for Agonism Between Analytic and Continental Philosophy. Open Journal of Philosophy, 1, 16-21. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2011.11003.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Beaney, M. (2003). Analysis. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL (last checked 4 May 2009) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/
[2] Campbell, R. (2001). The covert metaphysics of the clash between ‘Analytic’ and ‘Continental’ philosophy. British Journal for the History of philosophy, 9, 341-359. doi:10.1080/09608780110045335
[3] Critchley, S., & Schroeder, W. (Eds.) (1998). A Companion to continental philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
[4] Critchley, S. (2001). Continental philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[5] Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy? London: Verso.
[6] Deleuze, G. (1990). Pourparlers. Paris: Minuit.
[7] Dummett, M. (1994). The origins of analytical philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[8] Gloch, H.-J. (Ed.) (1997). The rise of analytical philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
[9] Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Leiter, B. (2004). The future of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[11] Prado, C. (Ed.) (2003). A house divided: Comparing analytic and continental philosophy. Prometheus: Humanity Books.
[12] Reynolds, J. (2006). Sadism and masochism—A symptology of analytic and continental philosophy?. Parrhesia, 1, 88-111.
[13] Sorell, T., & Rogers, G. A. J. (Eds.) (2005). Analytic philosophy and history of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Wittgenstein, L. (2002). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
[15] ZAizek, S. (1991). For they know not what they do. London and New York: Verso.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.