Ok, this is something that has been bothering me for a while. What is with the analytical/continental divide in modern philosophy? It is getting out of hand, if you subscribe to a-phil mailing list you will know what I mean.
From my limited understanding of this issue it stems back to 1943 and Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy publication. Where in he is rather dismissive of continental philosophers and philosophy, saying something along the lines of they don’t practice “real” philosophy. Come on, lets look at this in context, 1943, Hitler rampaging through Europe, of course Russell is going to be dismissive, he bundled all Europeans into one boat and cast them asunder.
Really in my head it is all very petty. To misquote Shrek, “Come on now, can’t we all get along over a pint?”
Philosophy is philosophy regardless of which particular field you are researching/working in, as a relative newcomer to philosophy (in an official context) I find this whole issue rather perplexing. After all analytical philosophy has the same roots as continental. They are both philosophy. What is the problem? We are all supposed to be grown ups with open minds, yet this divide shows that a lot of philosophers are the elitist snobs the general public think they are.
My two cents worth… as a student of philosophy – not analytical, not continental, just plain old philosophy!