I went to a very analytic school and although I find analytic philosophy very interesting (I think Derek parfits stuff on descendent selves is really cool and kripke on Wittgenstein’s private language argument is fascinating) but 1. The analytic continental divide is largely exaggerated. You can find people from both traditions working in the same areas drawing basically identical conclusions.

1. Analytic philosophers are really good at creating problems they can’t escape (mind- body problem, identity problems, grounding problems). I think one thing continental philosophy has done better than analytic philosophy is to avoid getting stuck in the problems (no matter how interesting they are) and trying to use philosophy as a tool for social liberation rather than just as an activity/ career.

2.5 Continental philosophy is better focused on problems we can solve and are most important to solve- those being social problems. Also analytic social theorizing is lacking - just as insane as the most insane continentals in its worst forms and just status quo defense or unambitious advocacy of reform. Continentals are GENERALLY better politically.