Philosophy For Our Times
Episode: Analytic or Continental philosophy
Guests: Christoph Schuringa, Genia Schönbaumsfeld, Babette Babich
Host: Danielle Sands
Date: December 9, 2025
Overview
This episode explores the long-standing divide between analytic and continental philosophy—a split that has shaped Western philosophical discourse for over a century. With analytic philosophy dominant in the English-speaking world and rooted in logical analysis and clarity, and continental philosophy offering broader, often more historical and humanistic perspectives (primarily from France and Germany), the panelists debate whether this division is dissolving, and what the future holds for European thought. The discussion touches on academic politics, language, methodological rigor, the threat to Enlightenment ideals, and philosophy’s relevance in contemporary society.
Panel Member Introductions & Opening Pitches
Speaker Introductions
- Christoph Schuringa: Associate Professor, Northeastern University. Editor, Hegel Bulletin; critic of "apolitical" analytic philosophy.
- Genia Schönbaumsfeld: Professor, University of Southampton. Wittgenstein & Kierkegaard specialist; questions scientific treatment of belief in God.
- Babette Babich: Professor, Fordham University. Editor, New Nietzsche Studies; expert in aesthetics, philosophy of science and technology.
[04:49] Opening Question: Are We Seeing the End of the Divide?
Christoph Schuringa [04:49–07:22]
- Assertively answers: No.
- “I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the divide.” [04:52]
- Notes increased friendliness from analytic side—less overt hostility than past decades (notable reference to John Searle’s dismissive Derrida remark).
- Warns that analytic philosophy’s “openness” is a form of victory/colonization: “They have their own versions of basically all continental philosophy.”
- On the continental side, sees potential for renewed engagement, especially via thinkers bridging traditions (e.g., Ray Brassier's interest in Wilfred Sellars).
Genia Schönbaumsfeld [07:31–09:48]
- Offers a nuanced view: the divide is diminishing as analytic methods gain prominence, especially in Europe, for institutional and careerist reasons.
- Appreciates reclaiming of figures like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by analytic philosophers, as it leads to clarity and rigor, but cautions:
- “Philosophy is not like science, it’s not an empirical subject. It shouldn’t be competing with science.” [08:40]
- Warns against the “danger” that philosophy becomes “too friendly to a kind of scientific way of thinking.”
Babette Babich [09:50–13:27]
- Sees the dominance of analytic philosophy as a form of colonization—not just intellectual but linguistic (trend away from studying philosophy in languages other than English).
- Personal reflection on loss of depth: “For me the distinction’s over because everyone has died...who are actual continental philosophers? You’re looking at one.” [12:50]
- Emphasizes importance of philology, language, and transmission traditions: “You cannot read Nietzsche in translation. You can, but you’ll be reading a lovely man, Reg Hollingdale. You will not be reading Nietzsche.”
- Summary: The divide is “over by default”: analytic philosophy consumes or replaces continental traditions as their original inheritors fade.
Is There Value in School Divides, or Is Philosophy All-Encompassing? [13:27–23:19]
Genia Schönbaumsfeld [13:45–14:42]
- Celebrates a diversity of approaches: “Philosophy is obviously the discipline that challenges just one way of doing things.”
- Endorses core values for all philosophers: Rigor, clarity, originality, even if methods vary.
Babette Babich [14:47–16:25]
- Challenges the centrality of “clarity and rigor”: “Analytic philosophy is boring. So this is the real problem with it. It’s not exciting.” [14:56]
- Observes that students don’t flock to analytic philosophy unless required; they want excitement and engagement.
- “No one should be forced to take a course in analytic philosophy. It’s not necessary.”
Christoph Schuringa [17:58–21:16]
- Critiques analytic philosophy's claim to clarity/rigor: “A great deal...that’s actually not clear and that’s actually not rigorous.”
- Points to reliance on “intuitions” as a form of dogmatism.
- Calls out “jargon” and academic conformity as barriers to genuine philosophy.
- Warns about analytic philosophy’s “colonial” mindset—demanding others “talk like us.”
Notable Exchange
Babich: “Who’s judging?” [16:25]
Schönbaumsfeld: “If you ask who judges, you’ve just said the most judgmental thing of all, namely that analytic philosophy is boring.” [16:37]
The Threat to Enlightenment & European Philosophy [24:43–35:11]
Christoph Schuringa [25:05–29:29]
- Enlightenment as an “incomplete project”; sees realization in Marx’s historical materialism.
- Key insight: Analytic philosophy aligns with a superficial Enlightenment vision (“everyone can pursue their projects freely”) but ignores deeper structures—“juridical and economic”—that shape freedom.
- Claims post-structuralist continental figures (Derrida, Foucault) have most influenced broader culture, often by undermining Enlightenment values.
Genia Schönbaumsfeld [29:29–31:25]
- Criticizes postmodernism’s contribution to relativism: “Postmodern way of thinking has basically given people the idea that there is no such thing as truth.” [29:41]
- Connects this to current social ills (fake news, conspiracy theories, loss of critical debate).
Babette Babich [31:34–35:11]
- Argues for tracing the critique of Enlightenment through Adorno (not just Derrida/Foucault)—the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” as a key text.
- Emphasizes the need for “doubt, skepticism, asking a question” rather than believing one already possesses the truth.
- “The word ‘rigor’—every time you say rigor, I am reminded of Heidegger.” [34:03]
- For Heidegger, rigor is not “analytic standards” but a “precision” in thinking: “You have to know how to think.”
Notable Quote
Babich: “Nietzsche said, let’s look at what sapere means. It means to taste. So it takes you right back to David Hume. It’s really very Scottish. And it’s something that requires doubt, requires skepticism, requires asking a question, as opposed to thinking that you know what the truth is.” [33:05]
Methodological Reflexivity & Self-Critique [35:57–39:34]
Christoph Schuringa [35:57–37:59]
- Analytic philosophy has lost early methodological self-consciousness (of Vienna Circle, pragmatists, etc.).
- Now tends to “just assume there are certain procedures to be followed,” lacking reflection on what the philosophical enterprise is.
Genia Schönbaumsfeld & Babette Babich [38:16–39:34]
- Both agree self-reflection is lacking in analytic tradition.
- Schönbaumsfeld: “The particular danger about analytic philosophy is that they somehow think they actually have no methodology...that’s obviously a fantasy.” [39:03]
- Schuringa: “To think that you have no methodology is like it’s somewhere hidden away.” [39:25]
The Future of European Thought [39:36–49:05]
Babette Babich [39:48–41:12]
- Pessimistic: “It’s in the hands of analytic philosophers, because that is all you have.” [39:48]
- Dominance of analytic philosophy in academic hiring/training—“They are responsible. So to me, that’s the future of Europe.”
- “The future is what we got now.” [41:07]
Christoph Schuringa [41:15–46:06]
- Offers a different pessimism: analytic and continental traditions both risk becoming detached from the world—“just confined to the academy.”
- Both sides risk “linguistic self-examination” or empty conceptual juggling.
- On the analytic side: “extreme technicality,” on the continental: “hermeticism.”
Genia Schönbaumsfeld [46:08–48:57]
- Offers modest hope: notes public appetite for philosophy, role for philosophers in countering post-truth “relativism.”
- Warns that academia’s left-wing default stifles debate on Enlightenment ideals and allows the far right to “reclaim” the Enlightenment.
- Advocates for philosophers to engage more with the public and challenge the idea that “there is no such thing as truth.”
Notable Quotes
- Babich: “It's in the hands of analytic philosophers, because that is all you have.” [39:48]
- Schuringa: “There is a great need for philosophy in our time...what do the people that come out of this whole tradition now do, I think has become urgent.” [41:20]
- Schönbaumsfeld: “Crises show that people do have an appetite for philosophy. They do actually want more philosophy in their lives.” [48:41]
Memorable Moments & Key Timestamps
- 04:52 – Christoph Schuringa: “I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the divide.”
- 09:50 – Babette Babich: “For me, the ascendancy of analytic philosophy…is also a kind of colonization.”
- 14:56 – Babich: “Analytic philosophy is boring. So this is the real problem with it. It’s not exciting.”
- 16:37 – Schönbaumsfeld (riposte): “If you ask who judges, you’ve just said the most judgmental thing of all, namely that analytic philosophy is boring.”
- 25:05 – Schuringa: “The Enlightenment, historically speaking, was a kind of incomplete project...it awaits its completion in the work of Karl Marx.”
- 29:41 – Schönbaumsfeld: “Postmodern way of thinking has basically given people the idea that there is no such thing as truth.”
- 34:03 – Babich: “The word ‘rigor’—every time you say rigor, I am reminded of Heidegger.”
- 39:48 – Babich: “It’s in the hands of analytic philosophers, because that is all you have.”
- 46:41 – Schönbaumsfeld: “Crises show that people do have an appetite for philosophy.”
Tone & Dynamics
- Spirited debate: Babette Babich deploys wit and personal anecdotes; Genia Schönbaumsfeld combines clarity with academic precision; Christoph Schuringa offers historical/theoretical depth.
- Occasional sparks: humor in initial analytic-bashing, mutual self-deprecation (pessimism over the discipline’s future).
- Shared concern: widespread agreement that both traditions risk academic insularity and loss of real-world relevance.
Summary Table of Key Themes
| Theme | Continental View (Babich) | Analytic View (Schönbaumsfeld) | Critique/Meta (Schuringa) | |---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------| | End of the Divide? | Dying due to colonization/opening; “by default” | Blurring, but analytic ascendant | Analytic openness is a disguised victory | | Value of Rigor/Clarity? | Not a monopoly of analytics; rigor ≠ excitement | Vital values—but all philosophies should try| Analytics overstate their monopoly | | Enlightenment’s Fate? | Needs dialectical, skeptical questioning (Adorno/Heidegger)| Relativist dangers, postmodern excess | Enlightenment is incomplete, needs radicalization | | Future of European Thought? | Analytic by default ("what we've got now") | Analytic dominance, but public wants philosophy | Both sides risk irrelevance unless they engage |
Conclusion
This episode provides a sweeping, incisive, and sometimes comical analysis of the current state of philosophy in the West, focusing on the analytic/continental split. All panelists agree that the landscape is changing, but they diverge on whether the shift is positive, lamentable, or inevitable. While Babich laments the loss of tradition, language, and true continental “teachers,” and Schuringa worries about engagement with real-world issues, Schönbaumsfeld sees both risks and opportunities—pointing to societal appetite for philosophy and a need to reclaim the Enlightenment’s transformative vision.
The analytic/continental divide persists, though not in its traditional form. The future of philosophy depends on critical self-examination, public engagement, and perhaps, rediscovering what it means “to think.”
Quick Timeline for Reference
- 04:49–13:27: Opening statements—Where is the analytic/continental divide headed?
- 13:27–23:19: Debate: Should philosophy be all-encompassing? Clarity, rigor, and the “boring” question
- 24:43–35:11: The fate of the Enlightenment and European philosophy’s cultural/political challenges
- 35:57–39:34: Meta-critique: Have analytic philosophers lost methodological self-reflection?
- 39:36–49:05: Prognosis: What is the future of European thought?
Recommended Starting Points
- [04:49]: Opening views on the divide
- [14:56]: Babich on "analytic philosophy is boring"
- [25:05]: Schuringa's Enlightenment history
- [34:03]: Babich on Heidegger and rigor
- [39:48]: Babich’s “future is analytic” claim
- [41:20]: Schuringa’s call for philosophy to “regroup”
- [48:41]: Schönbaumsfeld's hope regarding public appetite for philosophy