Also, I didn’t know people still used the term postmodern?

Sometimes I talk about the analytical vs Continental divide to people who know basically nothing about philosophy. And their assumption is that these two ‘camps’ are in disagreement. But of course, that isn’t true. Because disagreement implies debate, it implies exchange and reading and/or listening to each other. But there isn’t any of that, just dismissal. I feel more dismissal comes from the other side, but I have no clue. I know when I talk about Peter Singer to poststructuralists they just assume him and utilitarianism might as well be the same as nazism. And I know when I talk about Derrida to utilitarianians, they assume he and poststructuralism is just a bunch of irrational nonsense, the stuff of madmen. How do you have a discussion or a debate about ethics with a Nazi? Or a madman? Or if you could, what would the point be?

Lastly, what is up with Leiter’s point about the absurdity of the terms continental and analytic? We all know those are terms of convenience. We all know one side doesn’t have a monopoly on analysis, and the other side doesn’t have a monopoly on thought from the European continent. It’s like if someone said the sunset was beautiful around Leiter, and he went batshit making fun of them for thinking the sun sets when really the earth revolves around the sun. We fucking know that, thank you very much.