/lit/ - Literature

Why does it seem like analytic and continental philosophy are so fundamentally intractable? Is the root of the problem that they aren't even asking or trying to answer the same questions?

Why can't the Enlightenment thinkers, skeptics and ESPECIALLY the analytics into wisdom? They seem to lack the faculty for grasping it, deeper and greater as you go from Enlightenment to the analytics. Nietzsche is all "poetry" to them, because he leaves no "evidence" behind for what he asserts, even though to everyone else what he says is very much self-evident, because everyone else has a sense of what wisdom is and can see where he is coming from.

The same thing is happening with Jordan Peterson right now, it seems. He is not a very original man, but he is a good speaker and he is clearly wise. But people on Youtube and on here seem to disregard everything he says because it is lacking evidence. They seem to disregard mythic archetypes as having no meaningfulness whatsoever. What causes a person to have no concept of what wisdom is like that?

or is that just a debate that autists like to do

is there really a difference between the two "schools" of philosophy?

i dont want this to be a analytic vs. continental shit thread...just want to know if there is a real difference between the two

I see many in /lit/ attack continental philosophy.
Can anyone defend it and point to its merits?

Continental philosophy vs Analytical Philosophy

Which is better? which should I study? which is more respected?