Abstract

The split between analytic philosophy (AP) and Continental philosophy (CP) has mainly preoccupied scholars of philosophy so far, but in fact, it has broader pedagogical implications. This article argues that conventions of argumentative writing, as taught in colleges today, have their roots in analytic philosophy and its assumptions regarding ways of disseminating knowledge. Behind writing instructors’ emphasis on the ‘thesis and evidence’ structure lie analytic tendencies such as verifiability and intersubjectivity. By contrast, Continental philosophy emphasises the subjective human experience, which leads to a more experimental form of writing. This split and the embeddedness of argumentation in analytic philosophy is indispensable in comprehending the rationale behind the conventions of academic writing taught in colleges today.

摘要

迄今为止，分析哲学（AP）和欧陆哲学（CP）的分裂主要是哲学学者们关注的，但实际上，它具有更广泛的教学意义。本文认为，当今大学教授的议论文写作惯例源于分析哲学及其关于传播知识方式的假设。写作教师强调“论文和证据”结构的背后是可验证性和主体间性等分析倾向。相比之下，欧陆哲学强调主观的人类经验，这导致了一种更具实验性的写作形式。分析哲学中论证的这种分裂和嵌入对于理解当今大学教授的学术写作惯例背后的基本原理是必不可少的。