From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!titan!medici!louis Sun Dec  1 13:06:34 EST 1991
Article 1744 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10850 sci.philosophy.tech:1214 comp.ai.philosophy:1744
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!titan!medici!louis
>From: louis@medici.trl.OZ.AU (Louis Denger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Heidegger
Message-ID: <1991Nov29.082020.22315@trl.oz.au>
Date: 29 Nov 91 08:20:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: trl.1991Nov29.082020.22315
References: <5710@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@trl.oz.au (USENET News System)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 20

>From article <5710@skye.ed.ac.uk>, by jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton):
> In article <1991Nov25.065412.19783@trl.oz.au> louis@medici.trl.OZ.AU (Louis Denger) writes:
>>Et c'est bien evident que du point de vue empirique Anglo-Saxon,
>>Martin est impenetrable.
> 
> 
> It certainly seems to be the case that "continental" philosophy
> is harder to read than Anglo-Saxon "analytic" philosophy, at least
> as the two appear in English.  Are we suffering, perhaps, from bad
> translations?  Or just from impatience with a less direct style.

It is clear that European continental philosophy is different from
Anglo-Saxon one.
Both contribute in their own way to understanding
and knowledge.
As to whether this is good or bad is rather irrelevant.
Writing that a philosopher is impenetrable and irrelevant may indicate
that persons who pass such subjective judgements
are misunderstanding the problem, and are out of tune
with reality. This never adds to understanding.


