I just started reading “What is Analytical Philosophy?” by Hans-Johann Glock.
There remains a strong prima facie case of the idea that analytical philosopy constitutes a distinct philosophical phenomenon, whether it be a school, movement, tradition or style. Peter Bieri has recently proposed the following gruelling experiment. For a whole month, read the Journal of Philosophy in the morning, and then Seneca, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Cesare Pavese and Fernando Pessoa in the afternoon. Slightly altering Bieri’s setup, and making it even more sadistic, devote the afternoon sessions to Plotinus, Vico, Hamman, Schelling and Hegel, or to Heidegger, Derrida, Irigay, Deleuze and Kristeva.
Note that I am still struggling through the first chapters, so it is early to recommend it. However, I am very excited. After a few years absorbing theoretical (i.e., formal) and empirical papers, it is easy to feel the need to take a step back and put everything in the context of the intellectual program in which Rational Action Theory is circumscribed. Most importantly, the book is well written, a rare trait in political science —or at least in the political science that I think is worth reading.