There is somewhat some truth in the statement "analytic philosophers being flat earth philosophers" in my view. I see them as historians or custiodians of the history of ideas and this explains (a) as they understand (a). They don't have a paradigm or research program as such and are well versed in conceptual analysis just as Wittgensteins are. The argumentive features of analytic sparing is a training field in logic to sharpen these skills in conceptual analysis. the metaphysical positions of realism, idealism, nominalism and the likes provides a wide and interesting range of interpretations of texts to provide a battle ground of sorts. Why is Boxing one of the highest paid sports in our culture? Entertainment, training, ego... Wittgensteinians/Post Wittgetsteinians and Postmodernists are just as guilty as claiming allegiance to a system of thought as do Analytic philosophers I think Analytic philosophers are more likely to side with Wittgensteinians then Post Wittgensteinia ns as they are not looking for a cure, this can be seen in there containment of arguements to the history of ideas. I do agree with the statement of there being a humours side to the analytic debates say in a seminars etc.. because of there responses in argument e.g. A guest speaker may spend a year preparing a paper, when giving the paper in a seminar he has the advantage of knowing possible arguments against and has prepared responses. It is now on the onus of the person questioning the paper to respond to a prepared defense in which he is not prepared. The result is usually a foolish attempt(spilled lunch) to save face instead of conceeding the argument. Regards Brendan WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009