How did analytic philosophy come to dominate Anglo-American philosophy departments? If you thought it was just because it is the superior kind of philosophy, well, that might be your bias showing. Some seemingly important developments in the history of thought are determined by rather uninspiring and unglamorous contingencies, like rivalries or personal idiosyncracies.

The Daily Nousrecently discusseda new essay, "On the emergence of American analytic philosophy" by Joel Katzav and Krist Vaesen, published in theBritish Journal for the History of Philosophy在2017年。这篇文章认为，分析哲学的历史主导地位实际上在很大程度上是由于有意的“期刊捕获”和对其他哲学思维模式的智力排斥。用他们的话来说，“分析哲学的主导地位不仅仅是美国哲学或分析哲学的内在亲和力，好的论点，更有说服力的学说或缺乏替代方案。”

With this in mind, have we inherited certain biases when it comes to determining what kinds of questions or methodologies are properly philosophical? What makes something "good" philosophy in the first place? Is there a way to determine this without recourse to conventional discriminations against opposing philosophical traditions? Maybe the analytic and "continental" modes of philosophy aren't inherently opposed after all, and a concerted effort to cultivate more philosophically diverse departments and institutions will lead to better and more informed arguments.

Read the article here:http://dailynous.com/2017/01/24/journal-capture-led-dominance-analytic-philosophy-u-s/