Product Description

Analytic philosophy is roughly a hundred years old, and it is now the dominant force within Western philosophy. Interest in its historical development is increasing, but there has hitherto been no sustained attempt to elucidate what it currently amounts to, and how it differs from so-called ‘continental’ philosophy. In this rich and wide-ranging book, Hans Johann Glock argues that analytic philosophy is a loose movement held together both by ties of influence and by various ‘family resemblances'. He considers the pros and cons of various definitions of analytic philosophy, and tackles the methodological, historiographical and philosophical issues raised by such definitions. Finally, he explores the wider intellectual and cultural implications of the notorious divide between analytic and continental philosophy. His book is an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to understand analytic philosophy and how it is practised.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #385908 in Books
• Published on: 2008-04-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 304 pages

Review
"Glock argues that while there is no single trait shared by all and only analytic philosophers, a complex network of similarities -- "family resemblances" in Wittgenstein's phrase -- ties them together and distinguishes them from other philosophical movements...Anyone interested in analytic philosophy will want to read this insightful, elegantly written book. Summing up: Recommended."
-D. Haugen, Choice

About the Author
Hans-Johann Glock is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Zürich and Visiting Professor at the University of Reading. His publications include Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought and Reality (2003).

Customer Reviews

Marred by an invidious final chapter
As a perennial reader of 'continental' philosophy, turning to `What is Analytic Philosophy?' was an act of rapprochement on my part; an occasion to do away with preconceptions about analytic philosophy.

The stated aim of the book is to consider what analytic philosophy currently amounts to, and how it differs from so-called continental philosophy. To this end, chapter 2 provides an historical survey, sketching the emergence and development of the movement. The following chapters then consider the various ways in which analytic philosophy has been conceived, each chapter delineated according to a *type* of explanation: geo-linguistic definitions, historiographical considerations, the range of philosophical problems, methodological or stylistic definitions, and the deployment of ethics and political theory. Having rejected the preceding types of explanation, chapter 8 sets out its own conception of analytic philosophy.

Thus far, the work is written in a readable, engaging manner; competently arguing against common misconceptions with a not small amount of humour. Had the book ended here, it might have been worthy of recommendation. Alas, it entirely falls to pieces in the final chapter, which, crucially, serves to undermine anything that might have been persuasive in the build-up thereto.

The final part seeks to address the current state of analytic philosophy and of the analytic/continental divide, along with weaknesses of the 'current analytic scene' and the future of analytic philosophy. In so doing, it descends into astonishing depths of caricature, superficial misconceptions and pejorative language: "gibberish", "bankrupt and contemptible", "sloppiness and bungling", "charlatanism", "untenable" views and "culpable errors and distortions" of postmodernist thinkers. All the while inveighing - without even a trace awareness of the irony - against the 'unhealthy dogmatism', aggression and hostility to outsiders on the part of analytic philosophers, and advocating that they pursue an 'undogmatic', 'open minded' and `honest' approach!

Those seeking a more balanced and scholarly consideration of the relevant issues are advised to turn instead to the work of Simon Critchley.

Well Done!
I found this a thoroughly enjoyable book. It is informative, well argued, cogent and, above all, fun to read;
qualities which are all too often missing from comtemporary writings, in every field of philosophy. Thank you, Mr Glock, for expanding my
(somewhat dismal) knowledge of the depth and breadth of analytic
philosophy.