Abstract

It is widely accepted amongst philosophers that twentieth century British philosophy is distinct from the dominant philosophical schools in Germany and France. Termed 'Continental Philosophy,' the dominant viewpoint in France and Germany was characterized by a rejection of scientism, an acceptance of historicism, and an ethical mission. The dominant British school is termed 'Analytic Philosophy.' It modeled philosophy on science to a greater extent, rejected historicism, and tended to reject moral absolutes in favor of carefully establishing a shared vantage point from which an ethical case could logically follow. In this article, we will try to explain why the dominant philosophy in Britain was so different from the dominant philosophies in France or Germany. It is question-begging to put these differences down to historical differences, either in the development of the nation's philosophy or its broader political and social system, because this simply raises the question of why there were historical differences.We define the word 'dogmatic,' for the purposes of this discussion, in the purely psychological sense. A person is high on dogmatism if he asserts propositions to be true despite there being relatively little evidence for them. The more confidently he asserts these propositions, the more dogmatic he is. Ideologies can be described as dogmatic in the sense that they are constructed around moral or historical absolutes. A form of philosophy can, therefore, be described as 'dogmatic' if it is constructed around such absolutes and less dogmatic if there are no absolutes or if these absolutes are cautiously held to. Thus, asserting that, 'We have a moral duty to do unto others as we would have them do unto us' is more dogmatic than carefully establishing that this might be a reasonable starting point for pursuing an ethical discussion but accepting that there are problems with it. We hypothesize that Britain developed a dominant philosophy that was less dogmatic because its people were subject to lower levels of stress during the twentieth century. By contrast, France and Germany developed a philosophy that was more dogmatic and closer to the archetype of ideology because its people were subject to higher levels of stress. Specifically, we argue that those who were the leading philosophers in these countries during the twentieth century would have suffered from higher levels of stress during childhood.We have chosen to focus here on twentieth century philosophy. It could be argued that British and Franco-German philosophy diverged in the late eighteenth century. Even at that point, Franco-German philosophy tended towards absolutist schools, which assumed that knowledge could be reached by contemplation and that there were certain foundational truths. By contrast, British philosophy followed a more empiricist method, in line with such figures as David Hume, and Analytic philosophers generally have a greater respect for science than do Continental. It has been argued that, with the union of Scotland and England in 1707, Great Britain, as an island, became uniquely politically stable, in part because there was no longer any realistic threat of foreign invasion. Indeed, it has been suggested that this is one of the reasons why the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain; the country was safe and stable, and this encouraged investment and innovation (Clark, 2007). Accordingly, though we will not concentrate on this, the historical divergence in dominant philosophy between Britain and Continental Europe could be regarded as congruous with our thesis insomuch as it would seem to reflect lower levels of stress in Britain even prior to the twentieth century, and an apparent relationship between this and a form of philosophy that was rather different from that practiced in France or Germany.1. Continental Philosophy versus British PhilosophyThe term 'Continental philosophy' is generally used as shorthand for a number of related schools. …

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.