So, I'm not entirely sure that I buy that there exist two ideological camps, one with an emphasis in reason and another in subjectivity, that are thought to be mutually exclusive and incompatible. The distinction between Analytic and Continental Philosophy fails to take into consideration the decisive influence that empiricism had to play within the development of Analytic Philosophy and the obvious influence that Immanuel Kant had upon the Enlightenment. The geographical distinctions begin to make less and less sense considering that Kant is, to this very day, one of the world's most renowned German philosophers. Presenting the debate as between reason and subjectivity also seems to be a way of more or less blanketly characterizing so-called "Continental" philosophers as being somehow irrational, if not guilty of some form of individuated solipsism.

I also just simply do not believe for it to be a philosophical dispute at all. There does not seem to be an intellectual distinction between schools of thought centered around Great Britain and Germany; There does, however, seem to be a political distinction between schools of thought centered around the United States and the United Kingdom and France.

The easiest target for Analytic Philosophers is Jean-Paul Sartre. Despite never being required to account for the political misadventures or details of the personal life of any other philosopher, everything that Sartre has ever said, done, or been accused of is expected to be accounted for. I, too, have qualms with Sartre, but there seems to be a quite clear double-standard. No philosopher, in any given context, is ever expected to prove that they aren't somehow anti-democratic because of their willingness to discuss Plato's Republic. In any given conversation about Sartre, however, you will be expected, first, to prove that you are not a Fascist collaborator and, then, that you have no sympathy for the French Communist Party, of which, to my knowledge, Sartre was only briefly affiliated with and even later renounced.

From the critique of Sartre, what, then, seems to generate is a tacit disdain for the French. French intellectuals become blanketly characterized as celebrating the guillotine, fanatically communist, prone to political violence, and afflicted by what is not, but is often called "malaise", namely an incapacity to cope with human relations without resorting to excessive psychological manipulation or polemical verbal onslaughts, an effective caricature of a left-wing woman.

The Paris 8 does happen to be a university of some notoriety and not one, at that, completely without warrant. The characterization of all of so-called "French theory" as such, however, is indicative of an odd kind of chauvinism, one that harkens back to wars that only British historians still care to discuss, anti-French resentment, philosophical intransigence, a near complete and total failure to have considered the occupation during the Second World War, what is often American militarism, reactionary, in the sense of being prone to overreact to ideas outside of a person's chosen philosophy and not necessarily in the sense that communists call anything that they don't believe to be authentically communist to be "reactionary", Christian moralism, and a willingness, particularly on the part of certain Ivy League types within the upper class or even the patriciate, to use a philosophy as a whipping post.

So-called "Analytic" and "Continental" Philosophy have nothing to do with a preference for reason or subjectivity and everything to do with neoconservatism, neoliberalism, crypto-Fascism, the aristocracy in the United Kingdom, American exceptionalism, communism, and the cult pathology engendered by its many failed attempts at recuperation. It's exclusively a political dispute that makes little to no sense, considering that Bertrand Russell, the founder of Analytic Philosophy, happened to be a socialist and a pacifist. Anymore, it's really kind of just a lot of boarding school habits left unchecked on the part of certain kinds of men of wealth, status, and power in the United States and the United Kingdom.

It's an entirely pointless debate that, seeing that we don't still live during the Cold War, has little to no reason to any longer exist.