Modern Philosophical Traditions

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What are the major schools of thought in modern philosophy? What are the major differences between the Anglo-American tradition and the Continental tradition? Who are some of the most prominent advocates of each?

Theories of Justice and Critical Theory models feature prominently.

The liberal model, indicative of the Anglo-American school is represented by John Rawls (deceased). Check out Theory of Justice. Also, you have Rawls' student Robert Nozick who wrote Anarchy, State and Utopia though Nozick is neo-conservative and quite a bit more radical than his mentor. There are many others in this field.

I draw attention to Rawls because, aside from being a major thinker in the Anglo-American tradition, he has locked horns with some of the continental thinkers. Specifically, he has debated modern philosophical thought with Jurgen Habermas. Habermas is an eclectic thinker who has developed his idea of 'commuicative democracy' against the backdrop of a development of legal theory. He has done considerable work on sociological approaches, and is critical of Rawls' 'veil of ignorance' and feels that Rawls oversteps his role as philosopher.

There are other continental thinkers who deserve attention, such as, Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (representing a French school spanning from poststructuralism neo-Nietzschean thinking to the absurd.)

I think the Rawls - Habermas interchange is the best place to start, it's very constructive that these philosophers were able to communicate with each other prior to Rawls' death.

Edit: modern tradition, v. oxymoronic!

Originally posted by demonseed
Theories of Justice and Critical Theory models feature prominently.

The liberal model, indicative of the Anglo-American school is represented by John Rawls (deceased). Check out Theory of Justice. Also, you have Rawls' student Robert Nozick who wrote Anarchy, State and Utopia though Nozick is neo-conservative and quite a bit more radical than his mento ...[text shortened]... to communicate with each other prior to Rawls' death.

Edit: modern tradition, v. oxymoronic!

I know. 😉

Thanks for the starter. I'll take a look at Rawls vs. Habermas. However, their debate seems to be focussed more on the philosophy of international politics. Are there differences between the two schools on a more basic epistemological/metaphysical level?

Cheers,

LH

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I know. 😉

Thanks for the starter. I'll take a look at Rawls vs. Habermas. However, their debate seems to be focussed more on the philosophy of international politics. Are there differences between the two schools on a more basic epistemological/metaphysical level?

Cheers,

LH

Yeah they have a big disagreement on the role of metaphysics.

Rawls Sub-titled his Reply to Habermas Justice as Fairness: Political not metaphysical but Habermas is quick to take him to task on this point.

If you are interested in the metapyshical/epistemological then Habermas is your man. He is a little difficult to read because his style is rather dry, and eclectic. He enters into many debates, in sociology, legal theory, politics and philosophy.

I don't know if you have heard of it but Between Facts and Norms is a great outline of his position. A lot of it won't be relevant but you should be able to identify the interesting chapters.

Are you studying Political Theory at the mo' or is it more Critical Theory/Philosophy?