Abstract

Richard Rorty’s book1 bridges the gap, much talked about in the English-speaking philosophical world, between “Analytic philosophy” and “Continental philosophy” by showing, first, that they both inherited from Descartes, Locke and Kant, the same themes, concerns and ambitions and, second, that they both are on the verge of meeting the same fate. In fact, he does something more: he subsumes all, or most, recent analytical philosophical concerns under the rubric “Transcendental philosophy.” If some philosophers — or, better, some of their arguments — do not fall under it, then it is only because they are directed against it. Amongst “continental philosophers,” of course, a continuing concern with transcendental philosophy was almost a sufficient reason for regarding them as bad philosophers. If Rorty is right, then Russell, Quine, and a host of other minor luminaries come under the same genre; not unlike Heidegger and Derrida, Sellars, Quine and Davidson also fight transcendental philosophy, some from within, some from without. For having shown, with impressive historical scholarship, that this common concern runs through modern philosophy Rorty deserves congratulations.KeywordsContinental PhilosophyTranscendental PhilosophyCartesian DualismOngoing ConversationAlternative StoryThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.