Systematicity, Theses and Introduction

Thesis:

1. Systematicity is not yet worked out as a concept in Analytic Philosophy. 
2. Systematicity is rejected by Analytic Philosophy
3. Systematicity is rejected by Analytic Philosophy, because Analytic Philosophy does not pursue a Holism, but believes in the independent existence of facts.

Is the divide only stylistic?

 A House Divided, C.G. Prado begins with their difference in methodology. He says:

“The heart of the analytic/Continental opposition is most evident in methodology, that is, in a focus on analysis or on synthesis. Analytic philosophers typically try to solve fairly delineated philosophical problems by reducing them to their parts and to the relations in which these parts stand. Continental philosophers typically address large questions in a synthetic or integrative way, and consider particular issues to be ‘parts of the larger unities’ and as properly understood and dealt with only when fitted into those unities.” (p.10.) (Source has to be controlled)

Given this interpretation Analytic Philosophy goes down the path to atomism, while Continental Philosophy is interested in the broader structure, and is thus more interested in systems.

This oversimplification might not hold true anymore.

A short sketch here:

"While Hegel had reacted to Kant’s two-tiered epistemic reality, others now reacted against Kant’s synthetic a priori. G.E. Moore led the attack in Cambridge, rapidly convincing his colleague Bertrand Russell. Moore insisted on the importance of analysing concepts; Russell, who was a philosopher of mathematics, developed a reductionist approach to knowledge called logical atomism and a general focus on particular logical problems in opposition? to any sort of totalizing enterprise, both of which things led him away from the Hegelians. Meanwhile, Ernst Mach, a leading physicist and philosopher, saw Kant’s joining of metaphysics and epistemology as hazardous to science, and even referred to Kant’s epistemology as ‘monstrous.’ A group of philosophers in Vienna eventually gathered around the philosopher Moritz Schlick, with the intention of furthering Mach’s philosophy. They first called themselves the ‘Ernst Mach Society’ but eventually became known as the Vienna Circle. Among the many goals of this circle of philosophers, were the eradication of metaphysics (Carnap), reclaiming the supremacy of logic in philosophy (Gödel), linguistic conventionalism (Waismann), and also the debunking of Kant’s ‘synthetic a priori’. Those in the Vienna Circle instead made the Humean distinction between a priori (non-observable) and a posteriori (dependent on observation) truths; and they said that the only truths are either tautological (true by definition) or empirical (verified by observation)."


Sources:
https://books.google.com/books?id=mk8oSTk78oQC&dq=systematicity+analytic+philosophy&hl=de&source=gbs_navlinks_s


This article gives a good historical summary on the Continental, Analytic divide:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Analytic_versus_Continental_Philosophy

Thesis: The divide between Continental and Analytic Philosophy is heavily influenced by the question of systematicity.