# How Continental Philosophers "Argue"  ## Metadata - Author: [[Bentham's Bulldog]] - Full Title: How Continental Philosophers "Argue" - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Summary: The author argues that much continental philosophy pretends to make arguments but often uses obscure jargon, metaphors, and empty assertions instead of real reasons. They claim these methods produce unintelligible, trivial, or false conclusions and hide a lack of argument. This undermines philosophy’s standards and makes continental work seem like literary showmanship rather than rigorous reasoning. - URL: https://benthams.substack.com/p/how-continental-philosophers-argue?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=62t39&triedRedirect=true - Source File: web-only ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > Seeing a continental philosopher making arguments is like seeing a dog in a sweater. You suspect it happens occasionally, but it’s rare enough that it surprises you. And dogs weren’t made to wear sweaters. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k9vgs7tr5t1xm02gzvbf9yye)) > Now, while continental philosophy doesn’t really make arguments, what it does isn’t altogether different from making argument. It’s a hideous admixture of literary analysis, gibberish, and argument. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k9vgzmf8zaycd7hcbrp5kkxc)) > One way continental philosophers argue is by brazenly asserting “A is not B,” (where B is the obvious thing everyone would expect it to be) “but instead C” where C is some random thing that makes no sense. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k9vh0h7w4hx1ar9yjn525r50))