- Taschenbuch: 168 Seiten
- Verlag: Oxford University Press (22. Februar 2001)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 0192853597
- ISBN-13: 978-0192853592
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 17,3 x 1,3 x 10,7 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: Schreiben Sie die erste Bewertung
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 120.149 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)
- Komplettes Inhaltsverzeichnis ansehen
Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (Englisch) Taschenbuch – 22. Februar 2001
|Neu ab||Gebraucht ab|
Kunden, die diesen Artikel gekauft haben, kauften auch
Es wird kein Kindle Gerät benötigt. Laden Sie eine der kostenlosen Kindle Apps herunter und beginnen Sie, Kindle-Bücher auf Ihrem Smartphone, Tablet und Computer zu lesen.
Geben Sie Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer ein, um die kostenfreie App zu beziehen.
Wenn Sie dieses Produkt verkaufen, möchten Sie über Seller Support Updates vorschlagen?
Simon Critchley's Very Short Introduction shows that Continental philosophy encompasses a distinct set of philosophical traditions and practices, with a compelling range of problems all too often ignored by the analytic tradition. He discusses the ideas and approaches of philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Habermas, Foucault, and Derrida, and introduces key concepts such as existentialism, nihilism, and phenomenology by explaining their place in the Continental tradition.
Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende
Simon Critchley is Hans Jonas Professor of Philosophy at the New School for Social Research, USA. He also teaches at Tilburg University and the European Graduate School. His many books include Very Little... Almost Nothing, Infinitely Demanding, The Book of Dead Philosophers, The Faith of the Faithless, and, most recently with Tom McCarthy, The Mattering of Matter Documents from the Archive of the International Necronautical Society. A new work on Hamlet called Stay, Illusion! was published in 2013 by Pantheon Books, co-authored with Jamieson Webster. Simon is the series moderator of 'The Stone', a philosophy column in The New York Times, to which he is a frequent contributor.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com
I'm familiar with most of the philosophers that Simon Critchley mentioned in his text, including Bacon, Habermas, Weber, Locke, Foucalt, and more, but it's been a few years since I read some of their work and frankly I was hoping to be much more fluent in exactly what Continental philosophy is after reading this introduction. However, the book is more of a discussion of the differences between analytical philosophy and Continental philosophy than any sort of step-by-step description of Continental philosophy. This book isn't for the faint of mind, and I wouldn't recommend it as a first text in philosophy. If you have not read any philosophy or history (especially of the Enlightenment) it will be rough going to follow along, because much of the book reads like a who's who of philosophers.
I know the VSI series are limited in size, but I think this volume could have used a second appendix, with a list of the major philosophers that Critchley referred to in the book. It would be useful to also have them listed according to which branch of philosophy they belonged to. There are a few illustrations, including some portraits and photographs of philosophers, and some art that pokes a bit of fun at the subject (take a look at page 109). A short glossary would also be welcome in a text that bills itself as an "introduction."
In short, continental philosophy is philosophy ut philosophia: philosophy as wisdom. It is concerned with the central questions of human life: meaning, mind, purpose. And it tackles these questions by approaching them through intellectual history and with deep reflection on the structures of everyday human life. Thus, the great philosophers in the continental tradition all sought to do their work for the sake of the broader culture. Each diagnosed what they saw as a problem, and each proposed some sort of solution or liberation. The central problem of continental philosophy has been to explain the questions of human life in a satisfying way, despite the naturalistic intellectual revolution that has taken place since the Enlightenment. How, for example, can we appeal to reason when we cannot justify reason in the first place? What is consciousness? How do we know we accurately perceive the world?
These are all very good questions, and I don't think they have any good answers, because I think that the worldview of the Enlightenment is false. I am a Christian theist, and I think that the Christian can work in the tradition of continental philosophy by showing how Christ is the answer to the great questions posed by continental philosophers. It quickly becomes evident, however, that Simon Critchley thinks any form of theism is "obscurantism." This is where he needs a good dose of analytic philosophy. He contrasts the "obscurantist" explanation of an earthquake (God) with the "true" explanation (tectonic activity). Analytic philosophy can expose such contrasts as nonsense: there's absolutely no problem in positing both primary and secondary causes, given the traditional Christian doctrine that God actively upholds all things with the natures they have at every moment. While Critchley raises good questions about the phenomena of human experience, he never really tries to answer them. We are conscious, that's right. So how?
I would recommend this book only if you're prepared to be regularly looking up the thinkers and ideas he mentions early on. When it is used in that way, the book becomes very useful, and for me, it accomplished its job.
This entry is not the straightforward introduction to the themes, works and thinkers of continental philosophy that you might expect. Instead, Critchley describes the divide between Analytic and Continental philosophy, how it came about and how he believes it can be bridged. He makes no apology for offering such an unconventional introduction. He sprinkles the text with phrases such as "in my opinion", "my claim is", "my suggestion is", and so on. He openly allows that he is making a personal contribution to an ongoing debate, rather than attempting an objective introduction to a philosophical tradition.
Many years ago, at University, I was surprised to hear a French girl talk scathingly of British philosophers, saying that they were interested only in linguistic analysis and not in real-world problems, unlike Continental European philosophers. I was dumbfounded, thinking of Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Bentham, Mill, Russell…you don't get much more involved in political and social issues than that. After reading this book, I have a better idea of how she formed that view. It is an example of the divide, the mutual incomprehension, that Critchley describes.
Part of his thesis is that, in the English-speaking world, the divide is a manifestation of the wider cultural divide between the Arts and Science, which CP Snow talked about, the "two cultures" problem.
Critchley goes so far as to suggest that there is no point in writing like Heidegger and Derrida in English, because our cultural background is so different. I have to say I found this the least convincing part of his argument.
He continually talks of the need to bridge the gap between the two traditions and his starting point for this agenda is Mill's phrase, "I believe in spectacles, but I think eyes are necessary too", spectacles being the logic that brings things clearly into focus and eyes our immediate experience of the world.
The most extreme reaches of this divide, Critchley calls "scientism" and "obscurantism", the lunatic fringes of the two sides.
His casual dismissal of what he refers to as "obscurantism" is a little too sweeping for my taste: astrology and "sitting under pyramids holding crystals", fair enough - but yoga? That's too dismissive.
The inclusion as an appendix of the System-Program of 1796, a fragment thought to have been written by Hegel, is interesting.
So this is not what most readers will want as an introduction to Continental philosophy, but it is a thought-provoking, informative contribution to a debate that is central to modern philosophy.