[yyrrll]

Still worse, ignoring that philosophy has _always_ proceeded as a statement of theories to be questioned and improved upon.

The scholarship is just bad. The whole argument is full of mis-statements of critiqued positions.

Anyone interested in the article is better served to start reading Plato, Locke, Hume, Smith . . . .

[danharaj]

Wait, did you read her actual scholarship, or the summary of it given in a... New Yorker article?

The pompous middlebrow dismissal strikes again. In this moment I am euphoric.

[yyrrll]

If the article misrepresents the actual work, please, by all means, show that.