People are arguing, yet again, about analytic philosophy versus Continental Philosophy. As is often the case, much of the argument is about clarity in writing.

Clarity in writing is normally good. However, it is not always good. For anyone who thinks clarity in writing is always good, I would suggest reading the Tao Te Ching.

Reading the Tao Te Ching, we see that the author is weaving together a complex mosaic that I can best describe as moments of seeing, stances of being and sometimes, specific propositions. This interlacing is useful for both acting and thinking. There are discussions worth having and works worth writing that cannot be made clear.

It is undeniable that our impression of the Tao Te Ching as mystical and beyond language is partly shaped by our distance from the culture and intellectual community of the author who wrote it, but it there is a definite truth to it that would have held even in its own time.

The mere fact that a text does not consist in clear statements, questions imperatives etc. then does not establish it lacks practical or intellectual value. Therefore, just because one can say of Continental Philosophy “what is being said here seems mysterious- bent in on itself”- does not establish its lack of value.

Often unclear stuff does lack value. But then, clear writing also often lacks value.

Much Continental philosophy that is accused of being unclear needs to be understood as doing something quite outside the realm of articulating propositions as clearly as possible. When appreciated on these terms, it can be useful indeed. Also, many bits of continental philosophy are just nowhere near as unclear as is made out. That writers in the Continental tradition are sometimes difficult as a way of asserting their own importance is true - and that’s regrettable and it may be a bit of a special problem in Continental Philosophy- but it does happen everywhere, and Analytic Philosophers are not innocent (c.f. unnecessary use of the predicate calculus).

But if one side is guilty of narrowness, the other side of the debate is just as guilty of have outrageous laziness. There are still people, for example, that take analytic philosophy to be identical to ideal language approaches that haven’t really been that popular for almost 100 years now. We likewise have people treating analytic philosophy as if it were a weird aberration- it’s not- it is broadly continuous with the meta tradition starting with Socrates that includes everyone from Aquinas to Hume, to Leibniz. I have no quarrel with Continental Philosophy, but the idea that it continues the tradition of Philosophy whereas Analytic Philosophers are weird interlopers isn’t what a fair-minded reading would suggest. Likewise, although I think some Analytic social philosophy can often be quite shallow, it’s rubbish say that it doesn’t exist.