Nova PhDs

I enjoyed the earlier conversation re: whether there was any meaningful difference between "analytic" and "continental." I was just reading an interesting take on this question: Gary Gutting's review of Brian Leiter's edited collection The Future of Philosophy. There Gutting, against Leiter, wants to maintain the distinction as still meaningful in some way:

"I agree that there is no fruitful analytic-Continental division in terms of substantive doctrines distinctively characteristic of the two sides. But it seems to me that we can still draw a significant distinction between analytic and Continental philosophy in terms of their conceptions of experience and reason as standards of evaluation. Typically, analytic philosophy reads experience in terms of common-sense intuitions (often along with their developments and transformations in science) and understands reason in terms of formal logic. Continental philosophy, by contrast, typically sees experience as penetrating beyond the veneer of common-sense and science, and regards reason as more a matter of intellectual imagination than deductive rigor. In these terms, Continental philosophy still exists as a significant challenge to the increasing hegemony of analytic thought and, as such, deserved a hearing in this volume."