Traditions and boundary-work: Two perspectives on philosophy in Sweden during the second half of the 20th century

The purpose of this thesis is to study the philosophical developments in Swedish philosophy during the latter half of the twentieth century as a tension between what can be called an analytical and a continental philosophy. To do this I analyze the works of two prominent professors of philosophy. One is Anders Wedberg and his works in the history of philosophy which is widely regarded and here read as a work of analytic philosophy. His work is compared and contrasted to Hans Ruin’s doctoral dissertation on the term of historicity in the works of the philosopher Martin Heidegger which is regarded as a work clearly placed in the continental tradition. The main questions which are studied are: When and why did the split between analytical and continental philosophy occur? Which are the most significant differences between the traditions? How does Ruin and Wedberg point out the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy in their philosophical works? To do this I used the work of the science historian/theorist Thomas F. Gieryn and his notions of ”Boundary-work” and credibility in science. By doing this it is shown how philosophers such as Ruin and Wedberg through their works defines and talks about the tasks and goals of philosophy from within their respective traditions