Well accepted or not, they lack substance. The term "analytic"
philosophy doesn't pick out anything clearly. Nor does "Continental."
Besides, I'm not so sure that the terms are very well accepted.
There are many philosophers, me included, that don't think that the
distinction is useful. Leiter's recent post on the putative
distinction is insightful:
http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.com/2009/11/continental-philosophy-vs-party-line.html
The terms are even less useful when it comes to characterizing film
theory. There are definitely some distinctions that we might want to
track. At the moment, I don't have any great labels. I'm also afraid
of labeling anything cognitivist. It's decidedly not a school.
Merely eschewing grand theorizing and appeals to authority does not
make a school. In contrast, the homogeneity of Screen Theory does
have all the trappings of a school. I'm not sure how best to
characterize the array more recent work.
Aaron
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM, bill harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Strictly speaking within the discipline of Philosophy, the labels "analytic"
> and "Continental" are well-accepted. As to how Film Studies might reference
> this distinction is, of course, another issue...
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|