Publication Details

Abstract

This paper responds to the criticism raised by Ivo Dragoun against my earlier article on the division of philosophy into analytic and Continental. In the original paper, I argued that this division is problematic for factual, methodological, and power-related reasons. Dragoun attempts to challenge all three lines of argument. In this reply, I systematically reconstruct and critically assess his objections. I argue that the semantic defense of the notion of “Continental philosophy” remains unsatisfactory, that the methodological justification of the division faces persistent difficulties, and that the power dimension of the classification cannot be easily neutralized. I conclude that Dragoun’s critique does not undermine the original arguments and that the thesis concerning the inadvisability of the analytic–Continental division remains defensible.