Cette interview de quatre anciens Oxbridgiens, Jonathan Barnes (dandy spécialiste de philo antique qui se pique un peu d'originalité philosophique), Myles Burnyeat (spécialiste de philo antique bien plus réputé que Barnes, et donc plus humble), Raymond Geuss (humaniste à Cambridge) et Barry Stroud (l'obscur spécialiste du scepticisme à Berkeley).
Barnes est connu pour ses tentatives désespérées pour paraître aussi drôle que son frère Julian Barnes.
Jonathan Barnes : Well, most philosophers who belong to the so-called analytical tradition are pretty poor philosophers. (Most academics who do anything are pretty poor at doing it; and philosophy, or so it seems to me, is a subject in which it is peculiarly difficult to do decent stuff. A modestly competent historian may produce a modestly good history book; a modestly competent philosopher has no reason to publish his modest thoughts.)
Jusque là, je suis plutôt d'accord, et c'est une misologie raisonnable.
But there's a big difference between the analyticals and the continentals: what distinguishes the continental tradition is that all its members are pretty hopeless at philosophy.
Myself, I've read scarcely a hundred continental pages. I can't see how any rational being could bear to read more; and the only question which the continental tradition raises is sociological or psychological: How are so many apparently intelligent young people charmed into taking the twaddle seriously?
Mais ici, on reconnaît le moment où l'ironie cesse sa vertu de torpille pour devenir comme l'Acide Universel qui s'auto-dissout dans le néant. Peut-il vraiment prétendre que Bergson ou Cassirer étaient "hopeless at philosophy"?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire