/lit/ - Literature

>>17202581
Try to convince me that this isn't a retarded distinction that means little to anyone who is interested in philosophy beyond being a part of your ideological costume.
Hume is considered a titan of analytical philosophy, yet using reason, analysis, and logic, he concluded that all of these faculties of the mind are ultimately sensation. All human understanding is dependent on the feeling of impressions and ideas. Furthermore, through his method of intense analysis, he also discovered that some aspects of human understanding (for instance object permanence) are, despite being unable to defy and undeniably fundamental to the comprehensive function of the mind, ultimately illogical and unprovable. He credited these functions to human nature, and considered them as necessary and important as skepticism and rationality. So how is he any more an analytic than he is continental? And if you take his thought seriously (which everyone should) then you should know that even the most logical, emotionless philosopher is ultimately operating in accordance human nature and feeling, and if they are attempting to defy it then they can only be a sophist.
How do these terms have any real distinctions, to the point where some faggot (OP) can say that they "hate continentals"? I understand their use as vague descriptive terms, but to refer to them as clearly defined categories? Pure pseudery.