Two traditions with one obsession...

[RickLewis]

Despite the long divide between them, in the mid to late 20th century the Anglo-American analytic tradition of philosophy and the Continental tradition of philosophy both became obsessed with the nature of language. Yet despite that, the shared interest does't seem to have acted as a bridge between the two traditions. Why is that?

Does anyone agree with my description of the situation? If so, does anyone have any ideas about why this should be the case?

[tillingborn]

Despite the long divide between them, in the mid to late 20th century the Anglo-American analytic tradition of philosophy and the Continental tradition of philosophy both became obsessed with the nature of language. Yet despite that, the shared interest does't seem to have acted as a bridge between the two traditions. Why is that?

Does anyone agree with my description of the situation? If so, does anyone have any ideas about why this should be the case?

Dunno about any of that, but I can only wonder at your optimism if you are hoping for a sensible answer. Still, as it's something I know very little about and I've never given any serious thought to, I'll tell you anyway. It's all because of the political reality on either side of the channel; Great Britain hasn't been invaded in nearly a thousand years, America never, whereas the continent always has some loon goose-stepping all over it. The thing with political stability is that it nurtures conservatism. We have a constitutional monarchy that dishes out hereditary peerages to anyone that will support it, and in the States, it will be a cold day in hell before anyone gains serious influence without the support of people with serious influence.
Conservatives wish for things, people for one, words another, to be in their place. In terms of language this means getting analytical to the point where analysis of language is useless if a sentence actually means anything, symbolic logic and whatnot. The continental style is less absolutist; more liberal or more wishy-washy depending on your temperament. Descartes and Leibniz both comfortably straddle maths and philosophy in a way that Locke and Newton don't.
Of course, painting continents with such a broad brush doesn't give much resolution; individuals are completely lost, but that's the picture they are in.

[MGL]

Despite the long divide between them, in the mid to late 20th century the Anglo-American analytic tradition of philosophy and the Continental tradition of philosophy both became obsessed with the nature of language. Yet despite that, the shared interest does't seem to have acted as a bridge between the two traditions. Why is that?

Does anyone agree with my description of the situation? If so, does anyone have any ideas about why this should be the case?

While the analytic tradition strives for clarity and coherence in language, the "continental" (postmodern) seems to indulge in the exact opposite.
At least that is the superficial perspective from the analytic tradition.
For a far better understanding I can only recommend reading the excellent book "What is Analytic Philosophy?" by the continental analytic philosopher, Hans-Johan Glock.

[Bernard]

The Second World War created a very intense intellectual dichotomy, summed up perhaps by modern philosophers as 'Where is Zarathustra now?' In art at the time only raw flesh was worth examining, and only raw language in philosophy. It was about rebuilding, but with what purpose and to what end?

It's in my opinion that we have achieved very little since the Second World War. All technological and intellectual achievements have been mere refinement and filigree of what what went before. Obsession with language philosophically was merely scrummage for new ideas that never eventuates, or just dalliance.

However the past 60 odd years has led to a necessity to explore and return to very old ideas - so old that they virtually only exist as instinct to us now. I think continental philosophy is the mother aspect of this return to roots drive - she says little about but smiles because she knows its the direction we are inexorably heading, whilst fatherly analytic philosophy builds toward it even though it appears engaged in a very opposite motive.

The dichotomy seems to dissipate with post-modern thinking, but this is not the case. This is more like 'fatherly' analytic begrudgingly on 'motherly' continental duties.

There is much suffering to come before the dichotomy dissipates and [Western] philosophy is again at peace with itself

[MGL]

This podcast may be of interest:

http://philosophybites.com/2013/05/simo ... ental.html

[marjoramblues]

.

[marjoramblues]

.

[Bernard]

This is more like 'fatherly' analytic begrudgingly on 'motherly' continental duties.

There is much suffering to come before the dichotomy dissipates and [Western] philosophy is again at peace with itself

I don't recognise this as a useful distinction.
And why bracket off 'Western'; all philosophy being what it is, will never be at peace.

Just dont like to speak for other philosophies not of my birth right.