Repository | Book | Chapter

In 1919 Cyril Joad, English philosopher and celebrated BBC broadcaster, predicted that "of all the parallel crises of its kind historically recorded, the intellectual volte face in the English estimate of German scholarship during WW1 will surely stand out as immeasurably the most startling"(Joad 1969: 238–239). In the decades preceding the First World War (WW1), England celebrated the intellectual achievements of German scholarship. German-inspired idealism dominated many University philosophy departments and promising students were expected to learn German and to study abroad in Germany. Then came the transformation to which Joad refers and the situation reverses: German philosophy is then considered "bad philosophy' against the merits of the English tradition, which is tasked with saving philosophy from the German threat. Joad advised future scholars not to weigh these anti-German judgements as true or false, but to note that they were the "direct outcome of feelings engendered by the war" (Joad 1969: 238–239).In this paper, I take Joad's advice; I understand that WW1 caused a crisis in philosophy that raised the question of philosophy's relationship to the political. It is in this political scene that we find the origins of our contemporary divide between analytic and Continental philosophy, which has as its rationale the Enlightenment project of distinguishing the reasonable philosopher from the perceived philosophical fanatic or enthusiast. I bring the British and German traditions (represented by Russell and Kant respectively) into dialogue on the topic of this project in order to seek out another way in which to evaluate and respond to the threat of enthusiasm that could assist us in healing the continued rift between Germaninspired "continental' philosophy and British-inspired "analytic' philosophy in the contemporary scene.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50361-5_11

Full citation: