I'm rather a dilettante on this, so perhaps a question will help me clarify it.

I'm a bit surprised that you call it "Anglo-French" rationalism. I'd always associated the French with the continental tradition; the main names I know associated with continental philosophy are French. I'd thought it was called "continental" in explicit contrast with the British (and Anglophones in general).

Is there a large French "analytic" tradition that's getting swept under the carpet here?

I gather that the entire argument about the distinction is rather moot here. But I think I may also be missing your point entirely, and I'm curious if you could elaborate.

> Is there a large French "analytic" tradition that's getting swept under the carpet here?

Rene Descartes is considered to be the father of rationalism, meaning that knowledge can be obtained through reason and logic alone. The British tradition is more deeply rooted in empiricism with regards to observing natural phenomena, but it is not at odds with rationalism.

Ah, thank you. That's the context I needed.

This is how I've always understood it as well. It's probably not quite this simple, but for a couple of sentences, I can't imagine having a much clearer picture.

Part of me wants to replace "post-Kantian" with some sort of Hegelian descriptor, but I suppose the difference in meaning would be somewhat negligible. I've just always felt like every continental philosophy since Hegel has essentially been a response to him less than Kant, but Kant certainly provided the foundation for what was to come.

I am reminded of the recent experiment confirming quantum mechanics: reality does not exist until it is measured, but once measured it is a shared reality among the observers[0]. And what is measurement? The assigning of names such that the name can be shared among observers - and once the names are assigned, you can manipulate the names in a more (mathematic) or less (poetic) rigorous fashion (there are, of course, gradations in rigor). So: Anglo-French rationalism is true, at least for pure mathematics which explicitly disclaims application to any specific real-world object - but once we start discussing experience, perception (an accumulation of measurements, again, more or less rigorous) must occur so that reason can be applied. Until each of us has multiple universe-size supercomputers available, mathematical rigor cannot be applied to to the most important aspects of life, such as love (and even then, only if it escapes a Goedel-like undecidability).

[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/reality-doesn-t-exis...

> reality does not exist until it is measured

It's a weird way to explain the result of the experiment. The experiment is some variant of the ERP paradox and the result is that the polarization of a pair of entangled photons is not defined until it's measured, that is well known since many years. They use two properties of the photons (for some strange game for technical reasons?), but the result is not more surprising that the usual Bell inequality experiment.

It just means that polarization of a pair of entangled photons is not defined until it's measured, not that reality exists or not.

I think this is not quite right and/or you’re not using the word “rationalism” the way philosophers use it. The analytic tradition contains both rationalists and empiricists, as well as a lot of philosophers who don’t have an obvious position on the matter. That said, on balance, I think there are more empiricists—logical positivism is basically a modern form of empiricism.