Red pill me on analytical philosophy. To me it seems useful up to a point, in creating coherence between and testing intuitions and held axioms. People like Singer and Parfit seems to have had some influence on how people actually think. But when I look at actual research papers, it just seems like low-key insanity. Hundreds of pages of these ramblings on metaethics that lay claim to say something about reality, most with zero citations.

Basically, I feel like at some point you're just spouting a certain rhetoric, playing the "game" of analytical philosophy. My suspicion then is that these people just can't deal with the fundamentally mysterious aspects of life, and use this type of philosophy as a sort of comforting escapism.

Contrast this with math, that whatever it means, can at least be falsified in a rigorous way. Whereas it would seem a lot of analytical philosophy is only ever understood by the author and his/her supervisor.

So am I onto something or is it just 2deep4me?