Analytic philosophy hate thread

This is just thinly veiled ad hominem on your part. There is nothing inherently wrong with the definitions I provided. The issue here is your hubris in resisting categorisation.

Are you too poor to afford a computer that can load .pngs?

My apologies, I thought you quoted a different post of mine. I am these posts:

This is wank.
>analytic philosophy is clear and to the point; continental philosophy is vast and imprecise
These are value judgements that tell you nothing about the meaning behind the terms or their history.

It's just a quick summary to prima facie identify what tradition a text belongs to. user doesn't need to know about the reaction to logical positivism and Husserl for each side, etc.

No it isn't. It's highly personalised conjecture which betrays a clear bias towards analytic philosophy (I said towards not against). The author provides nothing in the way of actual definitions. He simply describes how he perceives each being formatted day to day: journal vs. treatise, willingness to criticise vs. arcane prostration, clarity vs. literary zest. This is useless as a definition.

>movements
Where's their manifesto? Why are Derrida and Husserl in the same tradition? What about Quine and Rorty? Why are Whitehead and Hegel in different traditions?

>a modern philosopher who is also a pedant
shocker

>>YOU JUST HAVE TO ""FEEL"" THEM OUT
Literally from your previous post

>there is only pedantry or muh feels - nothing in between
LOL