Analitik Felsefe - Kıta Felsefesi Ayrışmasının Tarihsel Dayanakları

Öz

Analitik felsefe ile kıta felsefesi arasındaki ayrışma, 20. yüzyılda ortaya çıkmış ve felsefe tarihine damgasını vurmuştur. Ayrışmanın Amerikan üniversitelerinde “resmiyet” kazanması ve ardından küresel ölçekte yaygınlaşması ile birlikte, çeşitli felsefe akımları arasındaki fay hatları da derinleşmiştir. Bu makalede, söz konusu ayrışmanın ne ölçüde felsefî savlara dayandığı sorgulanmakta; ayrışmanın yer yer düşünce tarihindeki girift ilişkilenmeleri perdelediği ve bu durumun anakronik yorumlarla paralel bir gelişim sergilediği öne sürülmektedir. Bu savı desteklemek üzere, ayrışmada belirleyici olan fikrî akımlar ve ideolojik kamplaşmalar ile tüm bunlara bağlı olarak akademide gerçekleşen kırılmalar ele alınacaktır. Makalenin ilk bölümünde felsefî akımların çeşitliliği ve aralarındaki bağlantıların karmaşık niteliği vurgulanarak, ayrışmanın meşruiyeti sorgulanacaktır. Kuşkusuz, tarihten günümüze oldukça farklı hatlarda ilerleyen ve hatta birbirine karşı kayıtsız kaldığı görülebilen birçok felsefe ekolü mevcuttur, ancak buradaki mesele iki farklı üst kategorinin varlığının dayanakları ile ilgilidir. İkinci bölümde ise ayrışmanın şekillenmesinde etkili olan felsefî düşünceler ve bu düşüncelerin şekillendiği ortamı belirleyen siyasal ve tarihsel gelişmeler üzerinde durulacaktır. Burada özellikle, Soğuk Savaş döneminin ideolojik ortamının felsefedeki ayrışmayı derinleştiren doğrudan ve dolaylı ele alınacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metafelsefe
• Analitik Felsefe
• Kıta Felsefesi
• Felsefe Tarihi
• Metafizik
• Felsefe-Bilim İlişkisi

The Historical Foundations of the Analytical - Continental Philosophy Divide

Öz

The division between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy emerged in the 20th century and left a lasting mark on the history of philosophy. As this division gained “official” status in American universities and subsequently spread globally, the fault lines between various philosophical movements deepened. This article questions the extent to which this divergence is truly based on philosophical arguments. It is proposed that, at times, the divergence has obscured the intricate interconnections within the history of thought and that this situation has developed in parallel with anachronistic interpretations. To support this claim, the intellectual currents and ideological polarizations that played a decisive role in the division, as well as the academic ruptures associated with them, will be examined. In the first part of the article, the legitimacy of the division will be questioned by emphasizing the diversity of philosophical movements and the complex nature of their interconnections. Undoubtedly, there are many philosophical schools that have developed along quite different lines throughout history, some of which have even remained indifferent to one another; however, the issue here concerns the grounds for positing two distinct overarching categories. In the second part, the focus will be on the philosophical ideas that played a role in shaping the division, as well as on the political and historical developments that determined the context in which these ideas took form. Particular attention will be given to the ideological climate of the Cold War period, both in its direct and indirect role in deepening the division within philosophy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metaphilosophy
• Analytic Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• History of Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• The Relationship Between Philosophy and Science

Kaynakça

1. Adorno, T. W. (2004). Negative Dialectics. (çev. E. B. Ashton). London: Routledge.
2. Akehurst, T. L. (2008). The Nazi Tradition: The Analytic Critique of Continental Philosophy in Mid-century Britain. History of European Ideas, 34 (4), 548–557.
3. Berlin, I. (1965/2000). The Roots of Romanticism. The A. W. Mellon Lectures in Fine Arts. London: Pimlico.
4. Carnap, R. (1932/2021). The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language (çev. A. Pap). Logical Empiricism at its Peak (pp. 10–31). Oxfordshire: Routledge.
5. Casati, F. & Wheeler, M. (2016). The Recent Engagement Between Analytic Philosophy and Heideggerian Thought: Metaphysics and Mind. Philosophy Compass 11 (9), 486–498.
6. Cooper, D. E. (1994). Analytical and Continental Philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 94, 1–18.
7. Critchley, S. (1997). What is Continental Philosophy? International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 5 (3), 347–64.
8. Critchley, S. (2001). Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Dreben, B. & Floyd, J. (2011). Frege-Wittgenstein Correspondence, Interactive Wittgenstein. Essays in Memory of Georg Henrik von Wright (ed. E. De Pellegrin, pp. 15–73). Dordrecht: Springer.
10. Dummett, M. (1993). Origins of Analytical Philosophy. London: Duckworth.
11. Engel, P. (1999). Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Norms. Monist, 82 (2): 218–34.
12. Garry, A. (2024). Analytic Feminism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), (ed. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman). Erişim Tarihi: 28.12.2024 (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/femapproach-analytic/).
13. Glendinning, S. (2007). The Idea of Continental Philosophy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
14. Glock, H. (2008). What is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Hanna, R. (2001). Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
16. Heidegger, M. (2009). Metafizik Nedir? (çev. Y. Örnek). Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
17. Humphries, R. (1999). Analytic and Continental: The Division in Philosophy. The Monist, 82 (2), 253–277.
18. Levy, N. (2003). Analytic and Continental Philosophy: Explaining the Differences. Metaphilosophy, 34 (3), 284–304.
19. McCumber, J. (2011). Time and Philosophy: A History of Continental Thought. Durham: Acumen.
20. Mill, J. S. (1950). On Bentham and Coleridge. New York: Harper & Row.
21. Overgaard, S., Gilbert, P. & Burwood, S. (2013): An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Quine, W. O. (1976). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Can Theories be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis (ed. S. G. Hardin, pp. 41–64). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
23. Quinton, A. (1998). From Wodehouse to Wittgenstein. Manchester: Carcanet Press.
24. Redding, P. (2007). Analytic Philosophy and the Return of Hegelian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Reed, D. (2007). Origins of Analytic Philosophy: Kant and Frege. Londra: A&C Black.
26. Rethy, R. (2017). Schopenhauer. A Companion to Continental Philosophy. (ed. S. Critchley & R. Schroeder, pp. 139–152). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
27. Reynolds, J. (2012). Time, Philosophy, and Chronopathologies. Parrhesia, 15, 64–80.
28. Rockmore, T. (2004). On the Structure of Twentieth Century Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, 35 (4).
29. Rosen, M. (1998). Continental Philosophy from Hegel. Philosophy, 2, 663–704.
30. Rosen, S. (2001). The Identity of, and the Difference Between, Analytical and Continental Philosophy. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9 (3), 341–348.
31. Schuringa, C. (2023). The Birth of Analytic Philosophy out of the Spirit of McCarthyism. Jacobin. Erişim Tarihi: 20.12.2024 (https://jacobin.com/2023/01/analytic-philosophy-mccarthyism-postwar-communism).
32. Spurrett, D. (2008). Why I Am Not an Analytic Philosopher, South African Journal of Philosophy, 27 (2), 153–63.
33. Tümkaya, S. (2021). Kaç Tane Metafelsefi Yaklaşım Vardır? Dört Öge, 19, 135–151.
34. Zahavi, D. (2016). Analytic and Continental Philosophy: From Duality through Plurality to (Some Kind of) Unity. Analytic and Continental Philosophy: Methods and Perspectives. Proceedings of the 37th International Wittgenstein Symposium, 79–94.