side note first, dialectic materialism is as modernist and 'truthy' as it gets. It stands in stark contrast to the the kind of thinking you appear to disagree w

side note first, dialectic materialism is as modernist and 'truthy' as it gets. It stands in stark contrast to the the kind of thinking you appear to disagree with. To the main point, you're honestly just being sentimental. You're calling secular philosophers nihilistic, predatory, accuse them of trickery but you're not actually making a point to be honest. They may be all those things, that doesn't mean their arguments are bad. The article talks about a very foundational question. Can metaphysics make progress? Is it possible to come to consensus when in fact everyone, as you put it, has to accept someone else's ontological premises in arbitrary fashion? The answer to that question is probably not, and Wittengestein, Rorty, and the mentioned pragmatists have deflated this kind of discourse successfully. Pay close attention to your own rhetoric "it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth." This is not an argument, that's someone saying "don't listen to the devil kids". It's appealing to a notion of truth as a sort of communal protection racket because you don't like the consequences of Rorty et al being right. In fact even worse, you're doing the sort of power play you're accusing the philosophers in question of. "They are trying to homogenize our culture, don't listen to them!, if we don't believe in capital T Truth, everything will fall apart!"