Nicholas was kind enough to send me links to some of his work. I might have different views on some of his specific points, but I do agree with his basic concern about the “dogmatic slumber” of much modern philosophy – especially “analytic”.

Perhaps one of the forces holding analytic philosophy back is its very name. Calling it “analytic” makes it sound precise, professional etc. In fact, large areas proceed on the basis of very narrow and woolly thinking (the “philosophy of consciousness” is a prime example; analytic aesthetics is another.) Which doubtless explains why it so often gives the impression of never getting anywhere. (Name me one – just one – important intellectual breakthrough in either of the aforementioned areas in the last, say, 40 years.) The result is a kind of tedious, inward-looking philosophy that, for lack of anything more substantial to do, resorts to splitting hairs over issues that are important only to those who, for one reason or another, are happy to settle for philosophy that is little more than a game of philosophical trivial pursuit.

Given this, it’s not at all surprising that some philosophers, such as Nicholas, lose patience and attempt to point out that in fact the emperor has no – or very few – clothes. And of course, these days, he is by no means the only one doing so.

DA