Considerations on the distinction between "analytical philosophy" and "continental philosophy"

Abstract

Given the invitation to write a text on the distinction and relationship between "analytical philosophy" and "continental philosophy" we can take many ways. Probably all of them have already been traveled. Most of these paths have the form of "comparison", either to highlight the differences or doctrinal, stylistic, historical or methodical coincidences that would exist between these two "philosophies" (eg, Prado, 2003). Another variant of the above seems to be the work proposed by the "cooperation" between both "forms" without this implying "building bridges" between both, but rather trying to "make them come together" (Bell, Cutrofello & Livingstone, 2016). Along with this are those paths that try to explain the way in which the distinction or the difference between these two modes of philosophizing emerged (Glock, 1999, Critchley, 2001, Cutrofello, 2005). All this seems to suppose, however, that we must accept the distinction at some level as one that has or made sense. But this is not at all obvious and in fact there are those who, with good reasons, seem to justly reject this idea. What are those reasons?