Talk:Postanalytic philosophy

Does this school of thought really exist?

Can anyone verify that this is an actually used name for a school of philosophy? I am a Ph.D. student in a philosophy program (Pittsburgh) which takes Rorty much more seriously than most, and I cannot recall ever having heard the term postanalytic philosophy. JustinBlank 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question! I hadn't heard of it, either. I just did a google search, though, and came up with 1030 hits. I'm not sure, though, that there is any real agreement on what the term stands for. The links I've checked out so far suggest that people are repeatedly inventing it as a nonce term for rhetorical purposes. This book, a criticism of academic philosophy for being too dry and narrow, says:

Cornel West and John Rajchman tried to start an avalanche when they announced the arrival of "postanalytic philosophy," but any change has remained undetectable. The move to "postanalytic" philosophy...is no more than a slight shift in a few strategic plays, carried out by the same familiar players. The technocracy remains intact, proudly displaying the same "dryness"...

This article from a philosophy journal says that postanalytic philosophy is a branch of the analytic movement:

...Postanalytic philosophy equals analytic philosophy minus logical atomism.

I've found some professors' web pages that mention an interest in "neopragmatism and postanalytic philosophy". I do see Rorty's name mentioned in connection with postanalytic philosophy, but nothing yet that makes clear that there is any real school of thought here or any accepted meaning for the term. If no one posts here within a couple weeks, I'd favor deleting the page. We can always re-start the page if a school of thought with clear-cut signs of existence does emerge.

Ben Kovitz 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

@BenKovitz and @JustinBlank: I agree. None of the citations even use the term. Of the roughly half of the listed philosophers with whose work I am acquainted, I have seen none use this term to describe themselves, nor have I heard it applied to them anywhere other than this page (which came to my attention when someone tried to add the term to the lead of the G.W.F. Hegel page, mischievously tagging the edit as minor).

I am of the view that this page needs one or more solid sources to support the contention that this term has any kind of currency among professional philosophers. It should also be made clear in the article that it has not been widely adopted and that few, if any, of the famous people to whom it has been here applied themselves use it to describe their work.

Attn, also @Antimépris, if you would like to better state your case and reasons for promulgating this label. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh, thanks for reminding me of this article. It's been almost 17 years and still no one has included a source to justify that there is any real published information to summarize in a Wikipedia article, so I went ahead and nominated it for deletion. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The framing of the question is ironically totally out of step with what is meant by "post-analytic philosophy." Citing examples of people self-describing themselves as working or having some affinity for this tendency of thought is already sufficient for us to posit its existence, but that is not the primary reason for using the term (and for this article/category existing). The question "Does analytic philosophy really exist?" is not that different, and would likewise be answered by simply pointing to the fact that the term has some currency for people who describe or self-describe with it.

Every philosopher in the list, which I have added to, are people for whom the tedious category of "analytic philosophy" just seems infelicitous. Furthermore, most philosophers in this list have expressed discomfort or at least lassitude with the label "analytic philosophy," and in other instances, directly criticize analytical philosophers by name, suggesting that they don't consider what they themselves are doing to be this sort of philosophy. In other cases, now that much philosophy that has "analytic" origins is seeking to literally replace what analytic philosophy is thought to depend on to have any form of life (such as its ahistorical quality, or the disinction of force and content in Frege, etc.), there is much talk about the end of analytic philosophy (this is a bit much). More importantly and more clearly, the existence of a piece of terminology which indicates a "detachment" from analytical philosophy is practical, not just for purposes of these philosophers' self-identification, but to serve the function of differentiating them from the philosophers they are explicitly criticizing and partially defining their position in opposition to. The idea that the aims and methods of Stanley Cavell are more similar to those of Kit Fine, than those of Jacques Derrida, is frankly a little bit preposterous and certainly bound to mislead people not already familiar with these taxa. To simply ignore this and, in the part of their wikipedia biographies where the "tradition" is indicated, insert "analytic philosophy" is obviously harder to justify from my point of view.

It is now the case that schools advertise "post-analytical philosophy" as something which students can study in depth, if you need an literalist approach to providing evidence for it being "a school of thought." This is still besides the point, however. "Post-analytic philosophy" is not a term that is meant to neatly categorize a group of like-minded philosophers; it is nothing other than a device for expressing (rather vaguely) their detachment from analytic philosophy. The term has less to do with what they are and more to do with what they are not. Antimépris (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Antimépris,

It would be great if you were to put as much energy and effort into improving the article, which has multiple clean-up tags and banners, as you do into castigating those attempting to engage in good-faith discussion.

In particular, the People section is currently in flagrant disregard of WP:LISTCRIT. Since some of the people whose work I did know from the previous list definitely did not belong, I am guessing that some of those whose work I do not know, but who are still listed, likewise do not met the definition that emerged from the recent deletion discussion (in which, for some reason, you completely declined to participate).

So heads up that I'll probably come back and remove that section if no one steps up to supply supporting discussion and inline citations.

Best— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I will soon furnish the article significantly, and include all relevant citations. I am still learning how to edit Wikipedia.

I again want to point out that it would be inappropriate to suggest that a definition of "post-analytic philosophy" for which criteria can be supplied (especially the definition that emerged from the recent deletion discussion) is conceivable or commensurate with the aims of this list/article, which does not enumerate philosophers who together form a coherent counter-tradition to analytic philosophy, but enumerates philosophers whose works express a demonstrable and explicit detachment from the traditional aims and methods of analytic philosophy, in a variety of ways. This is interesting and worth considering for reasons I feel I have partially pointed out in my previous response. The castigatory tone was avoidable, and I'm sorry to have come across that way. I hope you can at least see how what I am suggesting is of practical significance, given how many philosophers are currently categorised as "analytic philosophers," despite the intense remoteness of concern between them and other philosophers who typify and endorse what they understand to be philosophy done analytically, and the striking nearness(es) of concern between them and so-called non-analytical philosophers. The hypostatisation of analytic philosophy, by which I mean the relentless expansion of this category of philosophy to include an inordinately vast terrain of philosophical approach (especially any philosopher who was trained to study and respond to certain German-language and Anglophone philosophers of the late 19th century up to the present day, and writes predominantly in English), is an injustice not only to philosophers who are not at home with this label as self-description, but to those who are. Antimépris (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean the definition the work of thinkers who, having started out in the mainstream analytic tradition, came to place in question some of its central presuppositions from the deletion discussion or the definition currently used in the article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? I don't see how either of these definitions is problematic in the way you say. Both seem in perfect alignment with the points you make. Neither imply that postanalytic philosophy is a "coherent counter-tradition to analytic philosophy" and both imply postanalytic philosophy is a detachment from traditional analytic philosophy. The article also currently explicitly notes that postanalytic philosophy cannot be unified into a single positive project. Maybe I am misunderstanding why you think the definition is unhelpful to the article? Alduin2000 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong links?

The link in the first paragraph titled "social progress" links to "Philosophy (progress)" and not to the article "social progress". Where is it supposed to link to?