finally getting full picture. There is this idea of a Continental Philosophy provided by analytic philosophy which has all to do with a big split which runs right through the heart of philosophy and divides it into two big schools of thought fighting for the hearts and minds of young philosophers. Analytic philosophy on the side of light, reason, method, and science and continental philosophy on the side of darkness and willful erratic obscurantist relativistic irrationality (or some such). But as Glendinning convincingly argues that idea doesn't work. The main thrust of his argument goes into proving that there is no such thing as a school of Continental Philosophy. That type of thinking or tradition is nothing but a projection of analytic philosophers onto all those philosophical authors which don't play by the rules which they think essential for proper philosophical work. In reality those continental authors have no general common ground but are themselves many different schools of thought and not all are equally opposed to analytic philosophy, and finally they don't all unite in some systematic striving for obscurant irrational wilfulness. It turns out the sad truth is that analytic philosophy has grown big enough in the US and the UK to convince itself that it would be the only real philosophy and in that delusion they mistook the split between them and the rest of Philosophy for a split between two modes of doing philosophy. Or, to put it bluntly 'Continental Philosophy' is really just philosophy (i.e.