In a recent interview inWhat Is It Like to Be a Philosopher?, Tina Fernandes Botts answered the age-old question of whether analytic and continental philosophy are really all that different in the final analysis. Although Botts responds rather amenably by seeking to bridge the "divide" in confessing that she finds both sides helpful and "real" philosophy, she somehow manages to duplicate the very same debilitating stereotypes of these two fields at the same time.

她首先解释了分析哲学的错误之处在于思考“哲学问题可以通过将世界(或思想)切割成碎片，并在真空中检查每一块来回答”。另一方面，欧洲大陆的哲学也走偏了，因为据说它宣称“你所需要的只是隐喻来描述和理解这个世界。”除了对每个“方面”进行这些令人难以置信的扁平和一维的讽刺，并将大陆哲学的所有缺陷明显地追溯到她所称的“隐喻”之外，博茨还将自己置于一个更高的位置，意识到“要‘理解’任何事物，就必须批判性地考察研究现象的语境(我是一名诠释学家，这是诠释学中的一个基本概念)。”由于这个原因，这种基本的理解逻辑似乎只属于实践诠释学家，同时，这在分析哲学或大陆哲学中都不是完全可能的。

Although this does seem to be an earnest effort on Botts' part to help end the antagonism, these placements of blame on thinking within a vacuum and absolute reliance on metaphor run the risk of harmfully pigeonholing complex spheres of thought into questionable boxes. Certain analytic philosophers have been and are of course self-aware enough to be aware that certain limitations come from analyzing concepts too far from historical reality. And not all continental philosophers are metaphorical obscurantists, and are equally capable of thinking within "vacuums." Instead of looking to perhaps the worst examples from each respective side—as either hopelessly irrelevant or egregiously unrigorous—to characterize these domains and the serious thinkers operating within them, perhaps the divide would be ameliorated more effectively by raising up the best among them as representatives instead.

See the original interview here:http://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/#/tina-fernandes-botts/