> I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. Actually I think philosophy is a victim of its o

> I think there is a very real sense in which philosophy has taken its eye off the ball in the last 150 years. Actually I think philosophy is a victim of its own success at keeping its eye on the ball over that period. That is: analytic philosophy has eliminated a lot of bullshit and posturing at the cost of raising up a new scholasticism. Analytic philosophy is nice and rigorous, and any argument must be defended against opponents within a well developed analytical tool-kit. In maths or science, that would be just dandy. But if any field really was amenable to such rigour it would no longer be called "philosophy". So we get a conversation between academics where everything seemingly is there for solid analytical reasons, but is really just what evolved particular cultural ecosystem of analytical standards. Outsiders have to learn and adapt all that culture to be heard: and they are thus absorbed into it.