Crooked Timber » » Fugedaboutit:
Off the top of my head, I can recall at least one passage each in which Derrida and Foucault say, more or less: “Okay, yes, it would be good to stop talking about Hegel, finally. It’s been a long time since we all agreed that dialectics was a dead end, in fact it seems like we’ve been at this point forever. But there I go, talking about Hegel again. Because he makes us do it, somehow. Damnit, this is really getting old.” It sounds more impressive when they get that Ecole Normale Supérieure rhythm going, but that’s the rap, in paraphrase. All of this as prologue to what Adam Kotsko thinks is the present and future “Can we just shut up about this guy?” dynamic:
In fact, although it’s early yet, I will venture a prediction—the 21st century will have been little more than the century of Heidegger fatigue. There will be no great figure who arises to take his place. The recent half-hearted rise of Badiou is little more than a symptom of Heidegger fatigue, and—more to the point—Badiou’s own monumental arrogance can never be anything more than a feeble parody of Heidegger’s. ..

---It’s a conti thing. Analytic philosophy doesn’t work like this at all. We don’t think it’s even necessary to read the greats of the recent past (Quine, Ayer, Russell, Chisholm….) If they had something worth saying, then its survived in the work of those who built on them.
-what they’re (analytic philosophers) actually saying is equally rhetorical as continental philosophers. The reason that they think they don’t have to read their founders is largely PR - the analytics want to pretend to be modern natural scientists. But they lose gigantic things by this pretense, among which is their inability to examine analytic philosophy itself critically.