Much of analytic philosophy reduces philosophy to logic-chopping.

Vagueness is an inherent element of science itself.

To evaluate philosophical views objectively, we should discuss the theoretical merits of alternative views.

What is my least favourite genre of philosophy writing?

Many analytic philosophers despise the obscurantist, vague, and unclear writing style of continental philosophers, but at least that writing style can often be entertaining and occasionally deeply insightful. But as a philosopher working in the Anglosphere, continental philosophy isn’t something I encounter much anyhow. Analytic philosophy is the law of the land.

And so, as a naturalist philosopher, I find a particularly common style of writing and reasoning among analytic philosophers far more off-putting, given how frequently I encounter it.

It is also a style of writing that is common in online philosophy, where it’s all too common to try to debunk a position in a single comment, or dunk on a view with a single short argument, as if philosophical positions could be easily reduced to a short list of premises that can easily be dispelled.

Logic-Chopping in Analytic Philosophy

The problem I have with much of analytic philosophy is that it reduces philosophy to logic-chopping.

It is the kind of dry and over-precisified writing style aimed at objectivity, but that misses the forest for the trees—effectively ending up straw-manning most of the views it is trying to debunk.

If all you have available in your toolkit is an evaluation of whether a philosophical position is coherent or not, I am not very interested in what you have to say, since that is not very interesting at all. A great many philosophical........

© Psychology Today