What does it mean to engage with a text in Continental philosophy? Two recent blog disputes show up the necessity of having some idea of the specificity of Continental philosophy as compared to analytic philosophy.
1) Jon Cogburn’s uncritical re-transcription of the accusation that Laruelle is anti-semitic
2) R.Scott Bakker’s review of Adrian Johnston’s PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE MATERIALISM
In both cases it is a question of opinions being proferred about an author’s work outside any construction of their problematic, or of a problematic rich enough to engage that work on its own level of conceptual complexity. Ready-made stereotypes are pinned to sophisticated works in progress that expend considerable energy and conceptual power in tracking down and overcoming the various clichés that emprison our thought in automatic unthinking reactions and hinder our perception of the abundance of the world and of thinking about the world.
I have had many interesting experiences with this blog, and some very interesting discussions. But I am always amazed when people just waltz in and spout their opinions as if that were what philosophy is all about. Often they just tell me I’m wrong, and “correct” me, as if that were their idea of a philosophical argument. This is not my way.
I am linking to my series of posts explaining just what I think characterises Continental philosophy, in the hope of enriching the reading of texts that do not operate in the domain of opinion, and that deserve unopinionated conceptual responses. The series begins here.