[keeler]

> So he took philosophy out of the normative, positivist, Hegelian world

Former philosophy person here.

In analytic philosophy, those three are generally understood to be all at odds with each other. "Normative" has to do with values, typically moral ones such as "good" or "ought". Positivism in analytic philosophy generally refers to an early 20th century school of thought (see, for example, the Vienna Circle) that roughly held that the only meaningful statements were those that were empirically testable, or that were a priori; all other statements, including normative ones, were simply meaningless. Positivism exerted an enormous influence on analytic philosophy that is still felt today, though few if any philosophers identify themselves strictly as such anymore. As for Hegalianism, that was/is a major influence in Continental philosophy, but has had very little influence in the analytic tradition.

I haven't read much Nozick, but considering the article discusses his reaction against the analytic tradition, the closest thing he was reacting to of your three was positivism, mixed with the intense influence of philosophy of language that evolved out of the work of Frege and Russell.