True philosophy must ground itself in reality, not untethered speculation.

Childlike philosophical wonder is valuable but doesn't replace mature, science-connected thinking.

Wild speculation has value but belongs in fiction rather than academic philosophy.

This is Part 2 in a two-part series on two very distinct styles of philosophy. Click here for Part 1.

Eric Schwitzgebel doesn’t want to “reserve the name of philosophy” for non-naturalistic philosophy. The swallows of philosophy have increasingly given up on that goal. However, the many swallows housed in philosophy departments do want to preserve the label philosophy for all “their fallacious attempts at superscientific knowledge.”

Like Machery, I respect Schwitzgebel, and I, too, agree that his writing makes for a mind-bending and enjoyable read. But I don’t think it is philosophy. It’s more akin to a science-fiction novel that bends the rules of reality, but shouldn’t be taken seriously as telling us anything about the actual world. Schwitzgebel, of course, is more than competent in doing actual philosophy, masterful even. He has frequently dealt in deeply naturalistic work, even conducting empirical research himself. And so he is a good foil here, since his case shows that swallows can become moles. While I think that philosophy has no need for swallows—indeed, that it must ‘purge’ itself of swallow-like flights of fancy to become respectable again—no one is prevented from becoming a mole and doing........

© Psychology Today