One significant factor contributing to the waning popularity of Western philosophy over the past century is the apparent disunity among its practitioners.

The contemporary schism in philosophy can be traced back to the divide between Anglophone and European traditions, rooted in the early disagreements between empiricists and rationalists. This split intensified with the divergence between Fregean logic and linguistic analysis, in contrast to Husserlian phenomenology, existentialism, and post-structuralism.

At the heart of this division lies the epistemic authority of science. Empiricists argue that knowledge derives from sensory experiences rather than the nature of the mind or contextual factors, positioning knowledge as objective and independent from psychological, social, or historical influences. This perspective aligns with the scientific advancements pioneered by figures like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein.

Modern philosophers grappled with questions regarding the relevance of their discipline in an era dominated by scientific inquiry. Is science the ultimate authority on knowledge? If so, should philosophers cease their work and allow scientific methods to address all pertinent inquiries?

Alternatively, can scientific progress be viewed as less definitive? As later postmodern thinkers suggested, could science merely represent a phase in the broader narrative of human culture, potentially overshadowed by future developments and questions that require different modes of engagement with our surroundings?

A brief overview of the historical context reveals that empiricists like John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume posited that knowledge reflects not the knower but the known. They contended that knowledge is constructed through systematic organization of observational data, making it as universal as the principles of logic and natural patterns. This accumulation of scientific knowledge has notably advanced since the Italian Renaissance's departure from Christendom.

Empiricism reached its zenith with Gottlob Frege's formal transformation of Aristotelian and Scholastic logic, alongside the positivist enthusiasm of the Vienna Circle and Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus (1921), which claimed to resolve all philosophical dilemmas.

Conversely, rationalists such as René Descartes, G.W. Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza maintained that knowledge stems from the mind's interpretation of sensory experiences. They argued against the empiricist notion of the mind as a blank slate, positing instead that it possesses innate ideas and foundational structures guiding thought.

Early rationalists remained influenced by medieval Christian perspectives or were captivated by mathematics, leading them to regard these mental frameworks as universal. However, this inward focus on knowledge eventually became relativized, with Edmund Husserl emphasizing intentionality and consciousness, while Martin Heidegger radically redefined phenomenology, illustrating that human awareness is always contextually connected to its environment.

Jean-Paul Sartre extended this relativistic approach, highlighting human freedom and responsibility within a nihilistic framework. Others in this tradition, distancing themselves from the Anglo-American respect for science, began to explore various contextual factors beyond the psychological.

Building on G.W.F. Hegel's dialectical method, Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault emphasized the significance of genealogical, sociopolitical, and historical contexts. Nietzsche contended that both Christianity and liberalism embody "slave morality," suggesting that claims of civilized knowledge often disguise power struggles between social classes.

Jacques Derrida framed language as a pivotal context, asserting that there exists no thought beyond interpretation, portraying philosophy as a literary endeavor. Subsequent hermeneutic theorists began treating even scientific and mathematical disciplines as literary genres alongside the humanities.

As we enter the twenty-first century, the rift among these philosophical schools appears so profound that each perceives the other as irrational. Despite efforts from some, like pragmatist Richard Rorty, to bridge these gaps, institutions remain entrenched in their divisions. It is not uncommon for those affiliated with one school to face derision if they engage with opposing viewpoints.

The distinct styles that emerged reflect opposing beliefs about the role of philosophy in relation to modern science. Anglo-American philosophy, often termed "analytic," tends to adopt a scientific, technical, and professional tone.

Analytic philosophers strive for clarity, logic, and objectivity, grounded in Frege's quasi-mathematical explanations of logic. Their approach emphasizes problem clarification through concept analysis, paving the way for scientific validation of well-formed hypotheses. Philosophy here serves science, as the scientific methods are deemed operative, negating the need to revisit historical or contextual origins unless specifically interested in that history.

In contrast, the so-called "Continental" school, as derisively labeled by analytic philosophers, prioritizes rhetoric, viewing philosophy as a literary pursuit subject to interpretive frameworks akin to fiction. This perspective often obscures the line between fiction and nonfiction, leaning on figures like Karl Marx and Nietzsche, who critiqued the prevailing notion that expert consensus is merely a facade for social dominance.

For proponents of the Continental tradition, the most compelling philosophies are works of art that expand the mind, while poorly constructed ones are seen as ideologically driven. This critique extends to scientific theories, which they argue may reflect a naive humanistic desire to dominate nature, a narrative dismantled by postmodern thinkers.

To illustrate the differences between these philosophical approaches, consider a passage from analytic philosopher Jerry Fodor's 1989 article "Making Mind Matter More":

> "I remark, in passing, that determining that ceteris paribus stuff in the air causes maggots did not require that Pasteur be able to enumerate the ceteris paribus conditions, only that he be able to recognize some cases in which they were in fact satisfied..."

In stark contrast, here is a passage from Ray Brassier's 2007 work Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction:

> "Thus the distinction between the real’s foreclosure to thought and determination-in-the-last-instance as a transcendental effectuation of that foreclosure is not a dyadic distinction between different reifiable ‘things’..."

While both passages may appear challenging to readers unfamiliar with academic philosophy, their complexities stem from the authors' stylistic choices, reflecting their divergent views on philosophy's role amidst modern science.

Fodor's writing emphasizes scientific reasoning, presupposing the existence of natural laws and engaging with their implications. His use of formal logic terms indicates a commitment to rigorous argumentation.

Conversely, Brassier's prose is abstract and creative, drawing on phenomenological and existential thought. His objective is not to argue or clarify empirical facts but rather to craft a language that unveils a particular worldview.

From a critical standpoint, each author might challenge the other's approach. Brassier could accuse Fodor of being ensnared in a neo-positivist framework, while Fodor might dismiss Brassier's work as unintelligible, labeling it as mere storytelling devoid of rigorous argumentation.

So, does this represent a true impasse? Are contemporary philosophers irreparably fractured?

It's essential to differentiate philosophy from its institutional practices, which are often divided for sociological reasons, much like the divisions between sciences and humanities. Emile Durkheim noted that social groups coalesce around tribal identities, each defining itself through a unique set of beliefs.

This sociological observation, while supporting the Continental perspective, also lends credence to the analytic viewpoint as it highlights a universal, anthropological principle rather than a mere power struggle. As we analyze societies throughout history, we often observe these tribal dynamics at play.

Thus, both philosophical schools possess valid arguments. Scientific advancement is real, as is the universality inherent in fundamental logic. The rationality of certain propositions cannot be easily dismissed as ideologically tainted, although political and ideological influences can obstruct the pursuit of knowledge, particularly in contexts where power dynamics are at stake.

However, the antirealist view that all propositions are ideologically motivated is self-defeating. If that were the case, what drives the existence of such language games? The most plausible explanation lies in our biological nature as primates, which science elucidates. If the prevalence of language games and power struggles is indeed ubiquitous, it implies the existence of a transhistorical perspective, suggesting that not all propositions are merely locally true, countering the postmodernist stance.

In this light, analytic philosophy may offer an advantage over literary philosophy, as its clarity and fairness foster a more honorable discourse. Artistic expression allows for greater flexibility, which can lead to superficiality in thought. While literary philosophy can achieve artistic heights, it risks failure, as the challenge of producing impactful prose-poetry is considerable.

Analytic philosophers build upon scientific foundations, leading to more objectively assessable merits, despite their writing sometimes being perceived as less engaging. The subjectivity surrounding poetic evaluations can create opportunities for deception, unlike the clear standards present in analytic philosophy, grounded in logic and scientific inquiry.

Ultimately, while there may be exceptional thinkers within literary philosophy, there are likely as many opportunists exploiting its open nature to disseminate trivial ideas. Regardless of the potential shortcomings of analytic philosophy, its reliance on empirical discoveries distinguishes it from a tendency toward uncritical acceptance of all forms of expression.

To navigate these philosophical divides effectively, it is wise to maintain a pragmatic approach to reading. Engage with a variety of perspectives and learn from diverse sources.

Yet, if one chooses to engage in philosophical discourse, it should be done honorably. This entails confronting ideologies and power dynamics where they arise and striving to communicate knowledge authentically, rather than perpetuating deceptive practices.

I compile my writings into paperback and eBook formats available on Amazon. Feel free to check them out for easy access and to support my work. The latest addition is *Questing for Epiphanies in a Haunted House, featuring 600 pages of my recent, varied articles.*