Just a plug for Andreas Vrahimis‘ excellent paper in the latest issue of BJHP, ‘Is the Royaumont Colloquium the Locus Classicus of the Divide Between Analytic and Continental Philosophy? Reply to Overgaard’ (the paper follows on from and seeks to nuance an earlier re-assessment of the Royaumont colloquium in BJHP by Søren Overgaard). In the paper, Vrahimis seeks to show that despite the sedimentation of an image of the Royaumont colloquium as an exemplar of a fraught encounter between two monolithic traditions (‘analytic’ or ‘Anglo-American’ and ‘continental’), what we actually see, if we examine the proceedings of the colloquium, is a great array of diversity of approaches and positions, belying not only a geographical or geopolitical divide between the Anglophone philosophers present and those of other linguistic communities, but also the notion of the internal unity of either of these two ‘camps’. I think Vrahimis has put his finger on something absolutely crucial here, which is that it’s not only ‘continental philosophy’ which is a distorting umbrella term for all manner of ‘traditions’, ‘schools’, tendencies or whatever (Simon Glendinning having undertaken the admirable task of pointing out the obviousness of this), but ‘analytic philosophy’ too. The reality, beyond rhetorically reinforced myths of foundation, is plurality.
Anyway, the moral of the story is, read Andreas’ paper! It’s good for what ails you (or me in any case, and I’m sure not just me…).