Hi.
Thanks for the question.

Now, there are some obvious issues, like the demands of publishing formats, styles and guidelines, the nepotism and inbred nature of the industry, the sense of ivory-tower entitlement, the incredible lack of experience had by the increasingly young PhD's (and rapid hires into professorships) emerging from analytic diploma(puppy)-mills, and of course the physics-envy impelled artificial field delimitations, but perhaps, though I should like to attend to these in turn, they are all best wrapped up in another aspect:

Generally, lack of scope, but pointedly PRIDE in this lack of scope, extending in three dimensions.

I will keep things personal, speak about what I know best, so you can see that I am honest and that the following is my best understanding:

1) Historical/contextual - I once dropped a class (doing a PhD, not a popular move) after the first day (in phil mind - or should I say zombies and other such ridiculousness) as the attitude of the prof (a rather well known 'reductive' physicalist) that he had never read Kant and was HAPPY about it.

The students who remained (everyone, actually) enjoyed his 'focus.'  I couldn't stand sitting in a room full of children who couldn't recognize, or refused to appreciate, the similarities between "propositional attitude" and "disposition."


2) Professional/personal or public/private - Now, these were and I suspect still are perfectly agreeable people, in that they chewed with their mouths closed and didn't steal laptops during coffee breaks, but there was a spirit of privileged ignorance that, in every contact I have ever had with (especially) the champions of Anglo-anal-phil, and I have sat with some of the more recognizable names here or there, has been repeated.

Sure, there may be passing interest in some relationship or other, as a moment of table talk.
But that is all that it ever really amounts to - table talk.
As if thee are a bunch of white collar Fred Flintstones: hear the whistle blow, and it's off to the golf course.

3) Cognitive/affective - Even when discussions run through libertarianism, the 'what sort of libertarian are you?' kind of line, the discussion is airy, ungrounded, as if the full ramifications are comprehended but not FELT.

Now there are exceptions, of course.  I once listened to a rather well known philosopher who writes mostly about distributive justice talk about how his new sweater was unnecessary and that he could more justly deploy these resources to other persons but he didn't remove his sweater, and as he failed to act he struggled with this fact...  So, I know that he was sensitive to the implications of his professional work on his personal life, and I respected that, but he - so far as I know - hasn't done anything about it.

(((But, there is more readily evidence to this effect.  For instance, the anemic attempt at defining wisdom recently (and expensively) undertaken by persons apparently without the necessary experience to make it happen...  Just imagine how many sweaters this effort cost us!)))

And, so far as I can tell, sweater-man can't do anything about it, not and keep his job, most likely.
Corporatism in the academy is - especially now that the Fed has destroyed the public base in the U.S. - not something easily overcome.
And, the stories about people getting fired or bought out for representing views against the illegal and immoral 'war on terrorism' (just another extension of corporatism in public policy) are famous enough to those who have been paying attention.
Not to mention Zionism and apartheid...
Down-under, there is full-blown internet censorship.
In Europe, people are jailed for talking about WW2.
For all the reading I am able to do, I have yet to see a anything published in a peer-reviewed journal indicting the U.S. for torturing people.  Considering that I spend a lot of time on Ethics, this is troubling, to say the least...  Now, this is changing slowly, and we may see some breakthrough, but the point is that philosophy is not leading the way, as it should be...
And, may never get the chance, if it waits long enough.
The push is on in the States for even more stringent 'protections' against open information. So, there is no short of evidence that, increasingly, to represent the truth, or even to seek it, is to marginalize, or even criminalize one's self.
And that means no job.

But, this is exactly the Philosophic mission.
It is only possible when one feels the situation, first, and understands it second.  When one does not distinguish between his/her public/private life (the distinction is artificial and merely serves corruption in the authentic Greek sense).  Altogether, when one realizes his/her place in history, and his/her role as the power that creates it.

Tracing the thread of these ideas to the beginning of this post, you see how we are led to the Analytic doorstep.

Now, one may object that I am indicting most of the West for most of time, but that is not my problem.
My problem is with Philosophy.
Specifically, with 'philosophers' who live in terms of the times, swayed by popular opinion, working in the mode of the popular times, in other words, in bite sizes on fad-topics and without lasting effect - the Analytic scholasticism of today, aka sophistry in the broad sense.

Recalling E.O. Wilson, the problems we face are not limited to one field or another, and will not be resolved within one or the other. The knowledge must be unified, and the Analytic attitude cannot manage it.
Recalling Aristotle, the problems are political problems, requiring a sort of civic courage that isn't demonstrated in Analytic departments on any level that I have witnessed, at least among professors under 60.
Recalling Heidegger, to live otherwise is to live without conscience, un-authentically, dis-ingenuously, in short, un-Philosophically.

Now, one may further object that I am laying out requirements too strong to be met.  By anyone.
But, again, this is not my problem.

It is easy enough, however, to see that Analytics are not up to the task.
If they were, they wouldn't be so proud of not reading Kant.
The kingdom of ends is our own.
Per Kant, Aristotle, Heidegger, we make room for the future in the space of our understanding.
Thus, the ends and kingdom so delimited, and the narrow focus of an analytic specialty doesn't offer much room for a future.
For anyone.

Keeping these horizons open is exactly the Philosophic mission.
And, as we see in some Continental Philosophy, this is still explicitly recognized, and so, for its students, still a possibility.

Now, this is a single pass exposition.
Treat is as a conversation, ok?
I have not even proofed it!
Not a lot of time to edit forum posts...

But, I am grateful to engage in discourse.
As men.
And, I am open to further discourse if you are interested in sharing your time.

Best,
Jeff