They were talking about how this month's book was written in an entirely different style of philosophy from what they usually talk about, and it rankled them (one of the two more than the other, I am terrible at telling which is which). The description of what makes analytic philosophy different made me realize... that is the style of philosophy that I studied in college!
I've literally been having the same problem, in the other direction. I never studied Foucault1 or Deleuze or whatever in college. I figured it was just from beyond where I stopped, but no, turns out it's basically an entire different branch of academia.
I love the dialectic churn of counterarguments. I love to write and read things like that. To me it feels like part of the natural process of working out an idea. If you just go ahead and assert a bunch of stuff about the world and then lay out an insanely complex theory built on it, it feels like you're building a castle on sand. If I disagree with one of the foundational bricks and that is not addressed, I'm just getting annoyed the further you go.
Anyway, I do fully agree with those Ranged Touch boys that it's really just a different methodology, and there's actually a lot of overlap in general conclusions. Just knowing why I might be annoyed will make me less annoyed in the future.
-
I did actually study Foucault, but in 8th grade, where I had an extremely cool english teacher who was so excited when a panopticon showed up in a post-apocalyptic YA book that we spent a whole week trudging through a Foucault excerpt word by word. It really did stick with me.