In this episode, I take a look at a recent article claiming that continental philosophers are “bad at arguing” — not logical enough, not clear enough, and fundamentally incapable of making a coherent point.

I think the piece gets part of the diagnosis right, but for the wrong reasons.

Many continental thinkers aren’t trying to write in a straightforward analytic style — not because they’re incompetent, but because they’re operating out of an entirely different philosophical grammar and a different theory of truth. Their writing looks opaque if you evaluate it through analytic expectations, but once you understand the theory-first worldview many of them inherit (especially in the Marxian and post-Hegelian traditions), the style begins to make more sense.

In this episode, I walk through where the article hits, where it misses, and how the deeper genealogical and presuppositional issues shape the analytic–continental divide far more than questions of writing ability.

It’s my first commentary-style episode after restarting the podcast, so the structure is a bit more exploratory — but I think it lands where it needs to.

(Small note: there’s a brief audio glitch around minutes 39–41; I patched it as cleanly as I could.)

Link to the article I commented on:

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hebrews1031.substack.com