What /lit/ thinks about these different ways to concieve the philosophy?
They work on small problem states that other analytics work on. It really depends on their areas of expertise. I can't really go ahead and list all these various problems and sub-problems, but if they're an epistemologist then they'll study the justification of knowledge. If they're a metaphysician, then they'll study fundamentality, ground, de re modality, universals, causality, etc. In phil of lang, things like meaning, reference, truth, and what a proposition is.
It's all about bit sized problem states that can be handled in the space of a journal article. The grand system building of Great Philosophers is a thing of the past in analytic philosophy.
>analytic except maybe Pooper.
No one cares about Popper these days. You're decades away from contemporary thought. Furthermore, contemporary analytics, autism-wise, blow Popper out of the water.