I think Bulldog is reviving a really old school debate that doesn't even seem very relevant anymore. I periodically check the Sorbonne's philosophy faculty and course offerings (e.g. https://international.pantheonsorbonne.fr/sites/default/files/2025-09/UFR10_2025-2026_catalogue_exchange.xlsx), and it's just very similar to what's offered at top American philosophy departments. Like you can work on studying Kripke's modal logic and stuff like that in Continental Europe now...
You can, but to be honest, there is a real, perceptible cultural pressure against analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy classes tend to be less popular, and students interested in it are a minority in most curricula. My own philosophy undergrad went from mostly-analytic to mostly-continental after receiving complaints from students about analytic philosophy being too present.
It's also an impression that pervades the higher spheres of government. I think people with a continental style have considerably more chances to be respected among elite circles than analytics.
I also think philosophy classes are extremely incompetent at teaching philosophy. They tend to neglect teaching the basic moves for thinking in any given tradition and try to directly 'import' knowledge into the heads of students.
This war is indeed over, but there is still a problem. It hasn't been resolved, merely set aside as an unfruitful dispute. People still root for one style or another. And this obviously requires explanations and resolution, especially when those same philosophers get consulted on issues that matter, such as AI Safety or pandemic preparedness.
Sorry, I wasn't clear: I didn't say consulted by whom. Those philosophers are mostly consulted in popular TV shows and newspapers, which I'm guessing influences public discourse and hence politicians (on AI and pandemic preparedness).
I'm also aware of different politicians consulting philosophers on occasions on e.g. the environment and indeed AI (if one author disregards safety, however, I'm not sure it can be called "consulted on AI Safety").
I wouldn't call the philosopher I have in mind continental, but I think one author audited by the Senate would fall in this category regardless of him being a philosopher or not (pro-safety side, however).
Yeah I'm not happy about my piece. I think there isn't that much real insight left to be mined in the analytical vs continental philosophy "divide", but I was stuck on an interesting idea that I can write about quickly and decided to half-ass something for this one.
I find that one of the biggest differences is that most analytical philosophy is situated in the realm of propositions. This is super obvious in the early people (Russel, Frege, early Wittgenstein) but it extends to today. The Quinean guys are basically just operating at the level of propositions and are skeptical of all intentional meaning. A lot of continental stuff operates at a level below that, which means that a lot of analytical philosophers just simply don’t get it.
My own view is that the incomprehensibility of a lot of continental stuff is also based on the fact that most of the people that get hated on are anti-essentialists. This is especially true of the French pomos.
Scheler, Hartmann, Ingarden—guys like this are still continental, but they’re not nearly so difficult or obscure. But few people read those guys, and the barrier of entry is high simply because they’re writing for an educated elite most of the time.
Also, a lot of the early phenomenologists are very similar to what early analytic philosophers were doing. Mulligan, Smith and Simons have a short article on this. I think if we went back to these guys, we’d have far fewer issues.
This post develops a thought that I had after reading Bulldog’s piece, that continental philosophers seem more interested in picking things apart, or exploding them to bits, than trying to find answers directly through reduction and logic. It’s a little like Occam’s razor in reverse.
Anyway, I would agree you can’t necessarily judge A by the standards of B. Each knowledge community defines its own methods, agrees on its general standards of merit or demerit, and trains its students accordingly. It doesn’t make it nonsensical. I am sure there is something to being a professional wine taster or modern art critic, though both domains are inscrutable to me and make their pronouncements in a complex language that to me is anything but lucid.
> On its own terms…I’m not sure? I get the feeling that at least some continental philosophy is genuinely beautiful art, but I can’t honestly say I’ve enjoyed or gained as much aesthetic appreciation from it as from reading, e.g., Kafka or Murakami.
My perception as someone who is decidedly not an academic philosopher is that continental philosophy is
A) Quite successful in introducing new ways of thinking to the culture, which is why many non-philosophers know about existentialism, absurdism, marxism, postmodernism, etc. and know almost nothing about analytic philosophy if they aren't themselves in an academic philosophy department. (Is influencing the wider culture continental's "own terms"? I dunno. It seems at least a goal.)
B) Frequently quite good as art. I would rate Camus, Nietzsche, Cioran, Barthes, and others pretty highly as prose writers. I certainly agree that some continental philosophers are muddled obscure and annoying to read. But, you don't need to be a philosopher to enjoy e.g. Cioran's aphorisms, Camus's novels, or Barthes's cultural essays. They're just good writers.
Several months ago, I made arguments about measure theory and k-complexity to BB. Based on the way he handled that, I will not argue with him again. It was nonsense and bad faith, through and through.
Not just bad at it, but bad faith about being bad at it! I think I can safely say he's bad at continental philosophy as well, from his post, and then decide not to argue since I do expect the bad faith to be a cross-domain problem.
I first logged onto Substack in order to read the blogs of Scott Alexander and Freddie DeBoer, who are almost painfully earnest and straightforward. Through them I found a handful of other blogs that were fairly readable and straightforward. Through them I accidentally BURST THROUGH into the main body of Substack and almost vomited. A self-involved mass of irony poisoned riddlers, painstakingly crafting logically void statements that are perfectly designed to confuse the average reader.
I've never seen a greater waste of talent OR vocabulary. This site apparently destroys brains.
I think it's fair to not like my article but I don't think it's reasonable to claim " A self-involved mass of irony poisoned riddlers, painstakingly crafting logically void statements that are perfectly designed to confuse the average reader."
I think my writing is clear enough to my intended reader, both in general and in this specific instance.
Stumbled on this piece (which I thought was good!) quite a while after it was written-- just wanted to say that this commenter sounds like they might be criticizing the substacks of people who write in a continental style (in contrast to the more analytical types they prefer) rather than criticizing you and this article!
If they are in fact criticizing you, then it's a self-evident bad take on their part.
Thanks! Lots of cool writers with a significant increase in content for inkhaven/nanowrimo has meant there's been a lot of exploring new writing to do!
I think Bulldog is reviving a really old school debate that doesn't even seem very relevant anymore. I periodically check the Sorbonne's philosophy faculty and course offerings (e.g. https://international.pantheonsorbonne.fr/sites/default/files/2025-09/UFR10_2025-2026_catalogue_exchange.xlsx), and it's just very similar to what's offered at top American philosophy departments. Like you can work on studying Kripke's modal logic and stuff like that in Continental Europe now...
You can, but to be honest, there is a real, perceptible cultural pressure against analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy classes tend to be less popular, and students interested in it are a minority in most curricula. My own philosophy undergrad went from mostly-analytic to mostly-continental after receiving complaints from students about analytic philosophy being too present.
It's also an impression that pervades the higher spheres of government. I think people with a continental style have considerably more chances to be respected among elite circles than analytics.
I also think philosophy classes are extremely incompetent at teaching philosophy. They tend to neglect teaching the basic moves for thinking in any given tradition and try to directly 'import' knowledge into the heads of students.
This war is indeed over, but there is still a problem. It hasn't been resolved, merely set aside as an unfruitful dispute. People still root for one style or another. And this obviously requires explanations and resolution, especially when those same philosophers get consulted on issues that matter, such as AI Safety or pandemic preparedness.
Do French politicians consult French continental philosophers on questions of AI safety and pandemic preparedness? :O
Sorry, I wasn't clear: I didn't say consulted by whom. Those philosophers are mostly consulted in popular TV shows and newspapers, which I'm guessing influences public discourse and hence politicians (on AI and pandemic preparedness).
I'm also aware of different politicians consulting philosophers on occasions on e.g. the environment and indeed AI (if one author disregards safety, however, I'm not sure it can be called "consulted on AI Safety").
I wouldn't call the philosopher I have in mind continental, but I think one author audited by the Senate would fall in this category regardless of him being a philosopher or not (pro-safety side, however).
Yeah I'm not happy about my piece. I think there isn't that much real insight left to be mined in the analytical vs continental philosophy "divide", but I was stuck on an interesting idea that I can write about quickly and decided to half-ass something for this one.
I find that one of the biggest differences is that most analytical philosophy is situated in the realm of propositions. This is super obvious in the early people (Russel, Frege, early Wittgenstein) but it extends to today. The Quinean guys are basically just operating at the level of propositions and are skeptical of all intentional meaning. A lot of continental stuff operates at a level below that, which means that a lot of analytical philosophers just simply don’t get it.
My own view is that the incomprehensibility of a lot of continental stuff is also based on the fact that most of the people that get hated on are anti-essentialists. This is especially true of the French pomos.
Scheler, Hartmann, Ingarden—guys like this are still continental, but they’re not nearly so difficult or obscure. But few people read those guys, and the barrier of entry is high simply because they’re writing for an educated elite most of the time.
Also, a lot of the early phenomenologists are very similar to what early analytic philosophers were doing. Mulligan, Smith and Simons have a short article on this. I think if we went back to these guys, we’d have far fewer issues.
Lmaoooo. I'm not really much of a philosophy buff but the nuance part reminds me of this iconic paper: https://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf
Great minds think alike. I actually linked it in the essay already! :)
Oh my god. So you did. Well, good taste in papers. XD
This post develops a thought that I had after reading Bulldog’s piece, that continental philosophers seem more interested in picking things apart, or exploding them to bits, than trying to find answers directly through reduction and logic. It’s a little like Occam’s razor in reverse.
Anyway, I would agree you can’t necessarily judge A by the standards of B. Each knowledge community defines its own methods, agrees on its general standards of merit or demerit, and trains its students accordingly. It doesn’t make it nonsensical. I am sure there is something to being a professional wine taster or modern art critic, though both domains are inscrutable to me and make their pronouncements in a complex language that to me is anything but lucid.
> On its own terms…I’m not sure? I get the feeling that at least some continental philosophy is genuinely beautiful art, but I can’t honestly say I’ve enjoyed or gained as much aesthetic appreciation from it as from reading, e.g., Kafka or Murakami.
My perception as someone who is decidedly not an academic philosopher is that continental philosophy is
A) Quite successful in introducing new ways of thinking to the culture, which is why many non-philosophers know about existentialism, absurdism, marxism, postmodernism, etc. and know almost nothing about analytic philosophy if they aren't themselves in an academic philosophy department. (Is influencing the wider culture continental's "own terms"? I dunno. It seems at least a goal.)
B) Frequently quite good as art. I would rate Camus, Nietzsche, Cioran, Barthes, and others pretty highly as prose writers. I certainly agree that some continental philosophers are muddled obscure and annoying to read. But, you don't need to be a philosopher to enjoy e.g. Cioran's aphorisms, Camus's novels, or Barthes's cultural essays. They're just good writers.
Several months ago, I made arguments about measure theory and k-complexity to BB. Based on the way he handled that, I will not argue with him again. It was nonsense and bad faith, through and through.
BB is on the record for being bad at advanced math! I don't think you should update too strongly from that to other domains.
Not just bad at it, but bad faith about being bad at it! I think I can safely say he's bad at continental philosophy as well, from his post, and then decide not to argue since I do expect the bad faith to be a cross-domain problem.
I first logged onto Substack in order to read the blogs of Scott Alexander and Freddie DeBoer, who are almost painfully earnest and straightforward. Through them I found a handful of other blogs that were fairly readable and straightforward. Through them I accidentally BURST THROUGH into the main body of Substack and almost vomited. A self-involved mass of irony poisoned riddlers, painstakingly crafting logically void statements that are perfectly designed to confuse the average reader.
I've never seen a greater waste of talent OR vocabulary. This site apparently destroys brains.
what
I think it's fair to not like my article but I don't think it's reasonable to claim " A self-involved mass of irony poisoned riddlers, painstakingly crafting logically void statements that are perfectly designed to confuse the average reader."
I think my writing is clear enough to my intended reader, both in general and in this specific instance.
Stumbled on this piece (which I thought was good!) quite a while after it was written-- just wanted to say that this commenter sounds like they might be criticizing the substacks of people who write in a continental style (in contrast to the more analytical types they prefer) rather than criticizing you and this article!
If they are in fact criticizing you, then it's a self-evident bad take on their part.
tbh I think this article is one of my worse ones, so if you like my writing here you might like my other writings even more! :)
See eg https://linch.substack.com/p/which-ways-of-knowing-actually-work
or
https://linch.substack.com/p/why-reality-has-a-well-known-math
or
https://linch.substack.com/p/ted-chiang-review
They're written with some analytic philosophy readers in mind though not completely in that tradition, if that makes sense.
Thanks! Lots of cool writers with a significant increase in content for inkhaven/nanowrimo has meant there's been a lot of exploring new writing to do!
Thanks! Apologies if I came across as too sensitive! :)