Reno begins with a distinction between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, with modernity championing the former and postmodernity the latter. Reno asks, Against the appeal of postmodern thought and its reveling in the positive side of nihilism (Vattimo), must we revert back to a foundationalist enterprise? Must we either, in rejecting violent universalizing discourse, embrace postmodern thought and its loss of Truth, or embrace a foundationalist Truth?
Reno answers, No. You can be post-foundational, yet retain truth, in analytic philosophy!
Drawing on the history of philosophy, he draws a line between ancient philosophy as “way of life”, a “disciple of the soul,” where as scholastic philosophy “does not so much sing about the meaning of life as prepare for, clarify, order, support, and clear away interruptions to the song sung according to another score.” (please see the very helpful commenton the difference between “playing music” and “music criticism” by cynthia). Analytic philosophy has taken the mantle of this scholastic understanding, while continental philosophy has spoken in the dialect of the ancients.
But analytic philosophy is not a foundationalist discourse (in a sense) and ought to be embraced in it scholastic function, rather than passed over as a conversation partner in favor of the more prophetic continental discourse.
He concludes with affirming the analytic tradition as holding out the most promise “as a suitable conversation partner for theology in the crucial jobs of strengthening the doctrinal backbone of theology and restoring a culture of truth.
That is the gist of Reno’s offering:
please, no more continental philosophy; analytic is very heplful.