Michael Huemer, philosopher at UC Boulder, recently published two entries at his blog on the shortcomings of both analytic and continental philosophy. Near the end of the one on analytic philosophy, he says: Academic philosophers are so used to defining issues in this way (to create jobs for conceptual analysts, so to speak) that, if you try to discuss a normal point, philosophers will often misunderstand you, because they will try to get you to be making some ‘conceptual point’ that can be verified or refuted by analysis, deduction, and hypothetical examples. In the middle of the post on continental philosophy, he says: The style is largely the opposite of that of analytic phil. Continental writers are generally much less clear about what they’re…