There is a great divide running through philosophy. Analytic versus Continental. The proponents of each see their version of philosophy as more valid and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the other. Philosopher Simone Mahrenholz here argues this divide is the product of contingent events in history. Tracing the origins of both schools in part to outstanding personalities in early 20th-century Germany and Europe, in conjunction with world-political developments, she reveals this rift in philosophy as caused and radicalized by a peculiar course of events, including the rise of Hitler.

Newcomers to contemporary academic philosophy might find themselves at times perplexed by the degree and vehemence with which the discipline is still divided at most philosophy departments in the world. The current distinction between so called “analytic” and “continental” philosophy is at the latest a product of the 1970s, its methodological foundations however, have their origin in the 1920s or earlier. And, strictly speaking, it is a false equivalent: relating a method, analytic, to a region, the European continent. One could talk instead of Anglo-American versus European philosophy, or of analytic versus historical methods. But both of these would be misleading. Authors subsumed under “continental” are not predominantly historical in orientation, yet they include historical investigations for inquiries into their fields. “Analytic” philosophers, in contrast, tend to dismiss discourses from previous centuries as overcome by – well – scientific progress. They self-identify via the ideals of exactness and clarity and the method of logical analysis: of concepts, arguments, language and their relation to reality. Also, hardly any conference call or job posting goes out without explicit reference to methodological “rigour”.

SUGGESTED VIEWING The matrix, myths, and metaphysics With Hilary Lawson, Joanna Kavenna, Becky Parker, Eric Weinstein