1 Philosopher, free to good home...

Regarding philosophical tradition, I was essentially so steeped in the "analytic" method, that I didn't really even know that there was anything else out there for a while. I remember a conversation at AAR/SBL about being an analytic practitioner that I had: I was introduced as someone who "had gone to Munich to do Analytic Theology." I responded to this saying, "No, I went to Munich, and I do Analytic Theology, but the two were not connected..." And I wasn't even able to finish my explanation; that phrase alone was taken as proof that I was "an Analytic guy".

Now, as far as methodology is concerned, this is largely true. I find a certain amount of clarity important, and the Analytic tradition is full of that; I certainly do both my philosophy and my theology in an "Analytic" manner. I do also, as do many many other "Analytic" philosophers, reject the logical positivism and primacy of language that characterized the early Analytic Movement (Think Russell, Frege, and Wittgenstein; though I find some value in the writings of both Russell and Wittgenstein). This evidently doesn't disqualify me from being an Analytic practitioner, but the move I'm about to make will, in the minds of some, do precisely that.

The "Analytic" movement of the early 20th century was, as I understand it, primarily a reaction to British Idealism, itself a Hegelian interpretation. That has nothing to do with method, but rather with philosophical commitments. Thus, if I reject the commitments of the 20th century movement but remain an "Analytic Philosopher" or "Analytic Theologian" by virtue of the method, then I see no reason not to turn to concepts contained within German Idealism, at least insofar as they seem to serve as explanatory tools.

The idea of personhood that I have been reading about lately in Hegel and Fichte, as well as the dialogical personhood of Buber, doesn't seem to me to be something that should be rejected out of hand as "too Continental" for use in "Analytic" projects, as THAT sort of divide was defining "Analytic Philosophy" in terms of the commitments of the early 20th century movement. This, in turn, allows me to continue to use theological insights gleaned from "Continental" philosophy, insofar as I can explicate and make sense of them in a manner clear to others.

In short, I have found two interesting concepts (one of which, as noted above, is "personhood") within the "Continental" tradition which I believe might have explanatory power within the "Analytic" tradition, when properly developed.

But I don't know if this will result in an unwillingness to hear the ideas (imagine: That's too "Continental"!) or even an unwillingness to accept that methodologically I am working in a certain manner (imagine: "You're a "Continental Philosopher"! [as if it were an insult, which in some departments it might well be]).

Can I have a new designation please?