Splitting Hairs

It seems to me, that scientific and analytic philosophers are far too willing to split hairs. I note especially their questioning of definitions. Analytics are notorious for trying to overanalyze small words. I suppose that there isn't anything new under the sun... but philosophy strikes me more religiously, as a sort of felt understanding of the weight of the universe. Rather than overanalyze one idea, I'd rather flirt with a hundred ideas, and men with chests. The great existentialists-- you can feel their understanding of Man's condition. The great sages-- you can feel their words as well. The analytics seem too accountant-like. I am sure there is a place for having good definitions, especially of big ideas. However, a good definition of an uninteresting idea, does nothing to stimulate. Thinking big-picture: I feel that that is the point of philosophy, with definitions being the necessary evil, rather than the heart and soul.