The distinction between Continental and Analytic philosophy is certainly grounded in Kant. Critchley makes this distinction appear to boil down to this: Continental Philosophers engrossed themselves in the problems and existential woes that Kant's system invoked; Analytic Philosophers overlooked these woes and continued to do philosophy branching off from Kant, without stopping to address the problems of nihilism, radical skepticism, and the other problems induced by Kant. Husserl appears to be the only Philosopher who was able to both criticize Kant, address the problems his philosophy presents, and at the same time present a positive development of that philosophy. Thus, the divide between analytic and Continental philosophy is not one that can be "reconciled", it appears that these two ways of philosophy stem from two different ways of thinking - those who feel that Kant's philosophy (and it's implications) are liberating, and those who believe that it is frightening. It would appear that we have very little control over how we think in this regard - we are either humbled or despaired by his revelations, and how we preform philosophy will innately be affected by this attitude.