/lit/ - Literature

Analytic philosophy is very feel-centric too. Everytime you read in an analytic philosophy paper/book the words "plausible", "intuitive"/"counter-intuitive", and "thought experiment", you can be sure you're dealing with someone whose argument literally boils down to "this doesnt SEEM right to me" (otherwise they would have proposed an actual argument, instead of resorting to cheap rethorical tricks and intuitions). What I've just described is something which can be noticed in virtually every analytic philosopher that has been relevant in the last 100 years.

Also as other anons said, the analytical/continental distinction is not a distinction that really cut philosophy in half. Sometimes I hear people justifying the point I've just made by saying "analytical/continental philosophers nowadays engage much more with continental/analytical philosophy", but that's just bullshit. Sure, there is some engagement, but Habermas has not turned into an analytic philosopher only because he has dealt with Kripke. These engagements are superficial at best, and are as incisive as engagements with, say, medieval philosophy (which is to say: it can be a real influence, but it doesnt turn you into a medieval philosopher). This distinction is still alive and well, and it can be found in basic elements such as the consideration that a philosopher gives to formal logic (which is usually enough to distinguish an analytic philosooher from a continental one). So, when I say that this distinction does not cut philosophy in half, by this I do not mean that there are now some hypothetical analytical-continental hybrid philosophers that make the distinction invalid: rather, it does not cut philosophy in half because there are ways to do philosophy that have nothing to do with any of those two traditions.
The simplest example I can give of the insufficiency of that distinction is classical philosophy. For example, Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Leibniz, or Fichte and Hegel: are they analytical or continental? Clearly they're neither, since on one hand they reject a-sistematicity and the primacy of formal logic (which goes at odds with 99.999% of the analytic philosophy that has been written so far), and on the other hand they propose strong metaphysical systematic frameworks (which are at odds with 99.999% of the continental philosophy that has been written so far).

The distinction is fake, is mostly predicated on outdated fads, and contributes to limiting the scope and potentiality of young philosophers. These traditions must be simply rejected, those who aim to synthetize them have not understood how hollow they are.