Abstract

Post-Analytic Philosophy is a symptom of a certain discontent with the analytical heritage. This discontent is very heterogeneous, uneven, and frequently, depressingly timid. Partly at least, the aura of timidity which surrounds too much of this volume is a reflection of the very conservative, and inward-looking, “principles” of selection which the editors have adopted. With its distinctively amero-centric orientation, this volume displays an unfortunate chauvinism that excludes the more radical post-analytical philosophies from the Continent. Most notably absent is the work of Ricoeur and Habermas, who have fused together the immanent critique of early analytical philosophy by later analytic thinkers (Austin, Toulmin, Searle, Winch) with other non-analytical traditions in which their thinking was formed (phenomenology, Critical Theory) or to which they have responded (psychoanalysis; structuralism; hermeneutics)