I was looking through some old things and found a research paper I had written in graduate school on the philosophers Carnap and Quine. It brought back many memories about how the analytic tradition had been presented and understood by my professors. In the paper I critiqued these two thinkers by 1) looking at the problems that occupied their attention, 2) identifying the assumptions that led to these problems, 3) locating these problems in the history of philosophy, specifically as due to post-Kantian skepticism, and 4) noted both their consequences and ways to avoid the Kantian inheritance.
One of the problems is the division between the noumenal and the phenomenal and the assertion that reason is not ontological (it may apply to the phenomenal but not to the noumenal). Why should anyone believe that? Did Kant even believe that? Was he consistent in his application of that?