I have mixed feelings while reading philosophers trying to desperately justify their relevance. It's sad at first, then you start being battered with the verbose fallacies they believe to be good quality thinkin', and you wish they had died out a long time ago.
I do not have the time to address every bit of nonsense in this gish gallop so I'll stick to 2:
1. What is the measure of philosophic truth? It is implied strongly that "success" is determined by acceptance of ideas by others. Usefulness, accuracy, precision, ethics, are not important: what is important is that your ideas spread like a virus. If true, then philosophy is really, like the Sophists of old, just about rhetoric. And if manipulating people through words is your thing, then studying advertising and marketing would be a much more effective investment.
2. A key argument was "philosophy is so much better now than it used to be." I find the fact philosophy is not nearly as bad as it used to be, though arguably true, not very compelling. A better question would be "Is it good enough?" I have not yet found convincing evidence that is the case.
I do not have the time to address every bit of nonsense in this gish gallop so I'll stick to 2:
1. What is the measure of philosophic truth? It is implied strongly that "success" is determined by acceptance of ideas by others. Usefulness, accuracy, precision, ethics, are not important: what is important is that your ideas spread like a virus. If true, then philosophy is really, like the Sophists of old, just about rhetoric. And if manipulating people through words is your thing, then studying advertising and marketing would be a much more effective investment.
2. A key argument was "philosophy is so much better now than it used to be." I find the fact philosophy is not nearly as bad as it used to be, though arguably true, not very compelling. A better question would be "Is it good enough?" I have not yet found convincing evidence that is the case.