Continental Philosophy from Hegel

Historians of philosophy writing in English typically construct their narratives as if the authors whom they are discussing were all taking part in a single argument -an argument that is conducted in terms of those problems that we now recognize to be relevant. This appears to leave no place for those who do not share our current assumptions regarding the nature of the issues — who lie outside what we think of as "our tradition". Yet what is the alternative? Unless we can situate the authors whom we study in relation to our own concerns what philosophical value (rather than value of a historical, biographical or sociological kind) is there in engaging with them? Fortunately, this apparent dilemma rests on a misunderstanding. Philosophy is not a discipline carried on according to rules and assumptions fixed once and for all. On the contrary, it has always involved an attempt to examine and call into question ideas and commitments that are otherwise taken for granted. Thus we do not need to share assumptions with the authors whom we study (or, worse, pretend that we share them, when we do not) in order to include them in our discussion. Indeed, it may be the very fact that authors proceed from an underlying position very different from our own that makes studying them valuable: the difference challenges us to reflect on commitments that we would otherwise not even realize that we had. The problem is to explain the distinctiveness of the authors' own concerns in sufficient detail to make them intelligible and to find enough common ground to make the challenge that they represent a productive one. That is the purpose of this chapter.