Fair enough; but I would argue that the main thesis in the counter essay has nothing to do with the scope of pg's argument. In fact, I think the author would h

Fair enough; but I would argue that the main thesis in the counter essay has nothing to do with the scope of pg's argument. In fact, I think the author would have been better off leaving the issue of scope out of his essay. The main body of the counter essay lies in the intermittent sections between the introduction and the end. The biggest disagreement I see between the author and pg is the current state and value of philosophy. This is why I view the authors concession that most current philosophy might be garbage as largely irrelevant.