Analytic philosophers as a species abhor logical contradictions. Yet, during the middle decades of the twentieth century, analytic philosophers in Britain offered two contradictory justifications for their discipline. On the one hand they claimed to be bold revolutionaries breaking once and for all with philosophical tradition, and on the other they cloaked themselves in the mantle of that same tradition. Why did they do this and how did they get away with it for so long? Because they justified their work differently to different audiences and because historians have uncritically accepted the "Whig narrative" that analytic philosophers told about themselves.