Today’s philosophy deserves to be criticized, and good that it is. The problem is that when criticizing philosophy one usually defends science or religion. The same holds for the other parts of science-religion-philosophy triangle. Nice to see that someone finally seems to criticize all three of them.
Although it would be interesting to listen to the arguments why the platonic ethical intuitions are less consistent than the Bertrand Russell’s atheism.
There is a very nice article/interview in the Observer with Rebecca Newberger Goldstein about her latest book Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away, in which philosophy is defended very well. I particularly like the characterization of philosophy as `increasing coherence.’ I would very much like to see what people have to say about this, so I will try to keep up with the comments.