As the article describes it, it sounds like Schuringa’s criticism is aimed more at the attitudes, methodology, and political (dis)engagement of many analytic philosophers than at analytic philosophy in its own right. Like, if the same philosophers switched en masse to (say) phenomenology, would that by itself solve anything?
I think he's saying that a common sense attitude is what gives the tradition it's power and placement in society. To do an analytic philosophy without using the common sense tool opens one up to being ignored by the profession. GA Cohen's reframing of Marx's historical materialism into analytical philosophy is regarded by leftists, but I don't know any analytical philosopher whose engaged with it or changed because of it. So it's not individual, but an institutional issue.
As the article describes it, it sounds like Schuringa’s criticism is aimed more at the attitudes, methodology, and political (dis)engagement of many analytic philosophers than at analytic philosophy in its own right. Like, if the same philosophers switched en masse to (say) phenomenology, would that by itself solve anything?
I think he's saying that a common sense attitude is what gives the tradition it's power and placement in society. To do an analytic philosophy without using the common sense tool opens one up to being ignored by the profession. GA Cohen's reframing of Marx's historical materialism into analytical philosophy is regarded by leftists, but I don't know any analytical philosopher whose engaged with it or changed because of it. So it's not individual, but an institutional issue.