I agree with the spirit of this

The abstract of an OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE by Robrecht Vanderbeeken. (I haven’t yet read the article itself, and will have no time to do so until later.)

“A Plea for Agonism Between Analytic and Continental Philosophy

ABSTRACT
Since the rise of analytic philosophy, a virtual Berlin wall seems to be inserted with respect to continental philosophy. If we take into account the difference between both traditions concerning the respective subject-matters, the pivotal goals, the modes of inquiry and scholarship, the semantic idioms, the methodological approaches, the ongoing discussions, the conferences and publications etc., it is hardly an overstatement to say that both traditions evolve insulated and have a conflicting relation. From a meta-philosophical stance, the common and prima facie reply to this split is the encouragement of merging inclinations. I argue for another strategy. Based on a discussion of the intrinsic differences and their importance, I’m inclined to conclude that unification coincides with a loss of authenticity, blurring the critical potential of both traditions. Hence, we are better of endorsing agonistic pluralism between analytic philosophy and contemporary continental philosophy. The plurality of points of view render several opportunities for productive critiques and fruitful cross-overs between both traditions. Alas, the susceptibility for these innovations is vastly counteracted due to a widespread attitude of antipathy, ignorance and occasional vulgarisation.”

I agree with this. It’s almost becoming a cliché to say that the analytic/continental divide is counterproductive, stupid, etc. That seems completely wrong to me. There should perhaps be more communication across the former divide, but it should be highly targeted. To pretend that we’re all one big happy family is simply false– there is still plenty of mutual contempt on both sides, and it’s not entirely unjustified, given the vastly different conceptions of philosophy involved. I agree with continuing the agon.

The other strategy that I disagree with is the Leiteresque strategy of saying that analytic philosophy doesn’t exist, which is kind of like Darth Vader saying that “the Empire doesn’t exist.” It’s simply an attempt to deny that there is any rebellion, and to try to dismiss the rebellion as nothing but a low-quality version of something the Empire already does better. In other words, “continental philosophy done in continental departments is crap, and you need to go to study with analytic philosophers who happen to work on Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc.”

But I should also make a disclaimer here, which is that I have serious objections to how continental philosophy has been done over the years. Namely, I agree with LEVI’S RECENT POST on the topic, and this is one of the reasons I have not gone to a SPEP conference since 1993. And yes, continental philosophy in the U.S. has become almost exclusively a kind of commentary.

But this doesn’t change the fact that two completely different conceptions of philosophy are at play. One of them is a puzzle-solving model that idolizes the natural sciences with its brief, crisp journal articles referring mostly to living professional peers. The other is more of a “major figures” tradition, in the same way that art history (and arguably art itself) is a major figures tradition. Brentano saw this duality already at work in the 1890’s, and I see no sign whatsoever that it is on the verge of disappearing. The attempts to address it that I’ve seen so far have been fairly superficial, and not just on the analytic side. (For example, I don’t think it’s one of Badiou’s more convincing moments when he tells us that he’s overcome the analytic/continental divide because he writes plays and also uses set theory. That’s hardly the point, and I doubt you’re going to see many analytic philosophers quoting Badiou.)