|
The one Literary Theory course I took in university focused a lot on Heidegger. It also focused on the man who the professor teaching the course considered his modern equivalent, another German philosopher named Peter Sloterdijk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sloterdijk I had to read some passages of both Being and Time and from Sloterdijk's own magnum opus, Spheres. Both were completely unintelligible to an undergraduate, and apparently incredibly difficult for the Philosophy department at the school, who was made up of analytic philosophers, to understand. Which is why the continential philosophers were only discussed in the english department. The analytic philosophers thought what Heidegger and Sloterdijk wrote was very verbose nonsense. Germany seems to have a culture that still reveres these philosophers though. Sloterdijk even hosts a show on German television called the "Philosophical Quartet". Personally I think these right-wing philosophers get their reach because elevating their ideas is convenient for the ruling class. Billionaires like being told by esteemed intellectuals that their wealth is a sign of their productivity and that they need to reign in liberal democracy with their power.
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
side_burned posted:I had many criticisms of continental philosophy along those lines going through undergrad, some of which I keep, but I have more appreciation for it now. I can not say the same for analytic philosophy; analytic philosophy never comes in conversation about topics I am interested in. Also the people who talk about and quote analytic philosophy are libertarians. What changed your mind, and what aspects of continental philosophy appeal to you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 21:24
|
|