A Turd in the Punchbowl: Initial Thoughts on Christoph Shuringa’s “A Social History of Analytic Philosophy,” Or, An Epigone Crashes the Party, #1–Introduction.

(Schuringa, 2025)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. The Myth of Socially Disconnected Analytic Philosophy

3. The Death of Moritz Schlick

4. The Vienna Circle Takes On the German Philosophical Society

5. Otto Neurath

6. Rudoph Carnap

7. Hans Hahn

8. Philipp Frank

9. Edgar Zilsel

10. Rose Rand

11. Susan Stebbing

12. Russell and Moore

13. Michael Dummett

14. Schuringa’s Philosophical Hallucinations

15. Analytic Philosophy in the Cold War Deep Freezer

16. Analytic Philosophy and Angela Davis

17. Jean van Heijenoort

18. Noam Chomsky

19. On the Origins of Neoliberalism and Austrian Economics

20. On the Philosophical Roots of the “Dark Enlightenment”

21. The Horkheimer-Neurath Reconciliation Attempt

22. The Punch Bowl Revisited

REFERENCES

The following essay,* by EJ Spode,** will be published here in 22 installments; this, the first, contains section 1.

But you can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.

*Originally published in the 3:16am blog.

** “EJ Spode” is a pseudonym of Peter Ludlow.

A Turd in the Punchbowl: Initial Thoughts on Christoph Shuringa’s A Social History of Analytic Philosophy, Or, An Epigone Crashes the Party, #1

1. Introduction

When I was first hired as a junior professor of philosophy in 1987, I joined a department (at Stony Brook University) that had three “wings”—one in Continental philosophy, one in systematic philosophy, and one in Analytic philosophy. This demarcation was a reflection of a schism in 20^th-century that even then, was not making very much sense. I was already unclear what the distinction even came to. It’s not like there was some doctrine that Continental philosophers believed that Analytic philosophers didn’t or couldn’t. It was more of a sociological distinction having to do with your professor’s professor’s professor, who you read, and what your style of communication was like.

Originally, as we will see, the rift had quite a lot to do with Jewish Analytic philosophers fleeing Europe during World War II, and finding safe havens in United States universities. Understandably, they were not fans of Continental philosophers like Martin Heidegger, who had been completely in the tank for Hitler, and they were particularly put off by claims that Analytic philosophy was “bloodless” or “ungrounded in culture.” They had heard that one before, albeit in another context. This led to some unfair blowback against Continental philosophers in general, which led to unfair blowback against Analytic philosophers in general, and on and on it went until people decided that enough was enough (more on this later).

By 1987, for sure, some retirement-age philosophers held ancient grudges, but even in the case of the professors who had been victims of the Analytic/Continental wars (e.g., the purges of Continental philosophers at Yale), the victims were ready to let bygones be bygones. There were bigger fish to fry in the age of Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, by the late 1980s, Continental philosophers and Analytic philosophers were discovering that they had quite a lot in common, including a shared mandatory reading list that spanned well over 2300 years of philosophical common ground. It should come as no surprise that the common ground extended beyond shared background literature. They were apt to find themselves closely aligned politically and socially, and on pretty much anything, including (surprisingly often) who the smart students were, who the better teachers were, and where the best food was near campus.

If it seems that I am painting a kumbaya moment, well, perhaps I am. It was like a freshman mixer, with people from diverse backgrounds getting together for the first time and finding out, while they stood over the punch bowl, that they had much in common.

Apparently, not everyone has been enjoying this kumbaya moment—certainly not Christoph Schuringa, who has recently stepped into this happy freshman mixer and dropped a giant turd into the punchbowl, in the form of his new book. A Social History of Analytic Philosophy (Schuringa, 2025).

The book’s central thesis is that Analytic philosophy was born into economic privilege and that it has been carrying water for the status quo ever since. It has been a force defending bourgeois liberal ideology and marginalizing radical alternatives like Marxism. It is somehow a cheerleader for colonialism and capitalism. These are also the messages that readers of the book are getting. So, for example, Žižek’s takeaway from the book is that “Analytic philosophy is not politically neutral, it is deeply rooted in capitalist liberalism and its struggle against Leftist engagement.” Adam Knowles, in his review of Schuringa’s book in Radical Philosophy, takes the point to be that Analytic philosophy is “an intellectual tradition harbouring colonial ambitions” (Knowles, 2025). He adds that

Schuringa produces a persuasive case for Analytic philosophy’s fundamental role as a powerful intellectual tool of bourgeois liberal ideology. (Knowles, 2025)

Schuringa not only has a thesis, but he also wants us to know that he is not messing around. He is serious!

The tradition of empiricism-liberalism represented by Hume, continued by Analytic philosophy in spite of its ignorant self-image as just philosophy as such, rightly trembles at the wrath that might be unleashed by the powerful critical forces that its hegemony helps to keep suppressed. (Schuringa, 2025)

Wowzers, that quote is some Conan-the-Barbarian smack talk, but my first thought was: Hume? What?

In any case, I thought I might take some time off from my trembling and write some thoughts about Schuringa’s book. And my point here, now, is that for better or for worse, Analytic philosophers have been at the vanguard of progressive and radical social movements since it was forged in early 20th Century Vienna and Cambridge University, it retained its radical socio-political edge through the Cold War, and it retains that radical edge today. My more important point is that we are approaching an “all hands on deck” moment, and it is critical that Analytic and Continental philosophers need to unify in countering the very real dark forces that are at work in the politics of today.

Download