Of course I'm not "anti-philosophy" .... for the philosophy with a little "p". In fact I'll go so far as to say that there have been - and still are - excellent philosophers out there. Philosophers who see their job as trying to understand the world as it truly is in any meaningful ways and then thinking about and sharing their thoughts on what that might imply and how to go about finding out whether those ideas are genuinely so or not.
But I certainly am - vehemently - anti-Philosophy with a big P.
A good deal of philosophy seems to be intentionally obfusticatory.
Very particularly on the questions of mind, consciousness and brain. The materialist "scientific image" is almost certainly vastly nearer any ultimate truth than the logically incoherent and empirically trivially refutable statements of "manifest image". And yet, philosophy to this day, with some of its leading lights and recent writings persists in attempting to rationalize "theories" that prop "folk psychology" and that manifest image. And they do so in the face of and often distorting the real (and repeated) findings of psychology
I have found that in propping preposterous notions, even top name philosophers will not only not accept and adhere to well defined terminology but will knowingly confound prior interpretations of terminology but will - evidently quite knowingly publish works using the words or phrases of earlier works and confound their meaning by conflating it with an interpretation sometimes grotesquely contrasting with established meaning. (Let's call strong empiricists, "anti-realists", as a particularly grating example). They will continue to present arguments that have long had either strong logical and philosophical, or in some cases scientific rebuttal. And as a particular and flagrant affront to intellectual integrity, will knowingly misrepresent one another's work ... to the point where we outside their coterie could only see it as a libelous lie. (Many philosopher's claim Dennett "doesn't believe" in consciousness or denies our immanent phenomenality). And none of them, even those whose work I respect, seem in the slightest interested in speaking out about such intellectual perfidy within their ranks.
If philosophers will not respect the intellectual integrity of philosophy, why should we?
Quite seriously, philosophers are given "a place at the table" whenever matters of import and public policy are discussed. This needs to stop. No matter how valued some notions under the rubric of philosophy, by and large they were not written by the clown parade called philosphers today.
-- TWZ (Sometimes out in webbie land using the handle "ColonelZen")