« Panicking, Choking, and Just Plain Losing | Main | New Book Series: "New Directions in Philosophy and Cognitive Science" »

May 03, 2007

Comments

Cetin Balanuye (PhD)

Dear Protevi,

I think that the difficulty you mentioned here between so-called analytical and continental traditions stems basically from our difficulty in comprehending what particular representatives of those traditions do really tell in their works. If Deleuze, for instance, were to think about "physical emergentism" or "neutral monism" -an ordinary bundle of popular themes in analytical philosophy-, what would he tell us? Would he aggree that what we call thinking or counsciousness is simply an emergent complex quality, yet as real as body (if not more real than it)? Can we read his distinction between actual/virtual in terms of this analytical vocabulary? We do not have reliable answers. Deleuze might be considered as an ethical naturalist, but it is never clear if he is also sympathetic to natural epistemology. Then how can we legitimately place Deleuze, for instance, in either of the camps naturalistic or non-naturalistic?

Perhaps, "philosophers of immanence" versus "philosophers of transcendence" would be a better distinction. Though there are also many thinkers anomalous to this distinction, I think this is much better than A/C distinstion.

Best regards
Dr. Cetin Balanuye

The comments to this entry are closed.