DA: "My complaint is that the two currently dominant schools seem to live in almost hermetically sealed worlds, and seem unable to talk to each other in any sensible and enlightening way. For a field such as philosophy which (presumably) prides itself on its intellectual curiosity, its capacity to think clearly and engage in fruitful dialogue with others, this is surely something of an indictment?"

It might be worthwhile to compare the schism in modern Western philosophy to the Great Schism in the Church. Where Catholics welcomed in Byzantium and vice versa? Wasn't Christendom divided into almost hermetically sealed worlds, unable to talk to each other? Now, where the theological differences really that unsurmountable, or perhaps the schism was due, at least partially, to clashes of vested interests which masked themselves as matters of faith? Since the clerics in each realm had enough authority to impose their theology on followers, and enough power to resist attempted invasions by the other side, the schism became the normal, taken-for-granted state of affairs.  


You speak of philosophy priding itself on its capacity to think clearly and engage in fruitful dialogue with others. But are the group dynamics among philosophers really different from the group dynamics in any other group where what you say and what you believe is what you are? Like in religion and politics, philosophers' self-identity is bound up with their particular alignment's basic creeds. Maybe they should be humble rather than proud. Maybe they are unable to rise above their political animality when they philosophize. Maybe their careers and legacies are more important to them than anything else, really, including the ideal of open dialogue. If analytic Professor X sees his students reading Heidegger and taking him seriously, isn't that threatening? 

Yes it's indictment-deserving, insofar as being driven by the same passions and falling victim to the same neuroses as any other people in similar modes of social organization, is indictment-deserving. (Perhaps that in itself is not indictment-deserving. Being that and not admitting it - that is probably much worse, especially for philosophers. But then again, many clerics and politicians and just plain ordinary people are hypocritical too, and won't admit it, so why should philosophers be different?).