The disciplinary identity of philosophy is in question. So says John McCumber in “Reshaping Reason”, where he makes a serious argument with evidence of trends pointing toward a sort of Hegelian synthesis in American philosophy to overcome the “Fantasy Island” of analytic thought and the “Subversive Struggle” of continental thought.
"Fantasy Island" and "Subversive Struggle" are McCumber’s well-reasoned nicknames for the two schools. Here are his two primary criticisms of the schools: (1) analytic thought traps itself in present tense language, ignoring the substantive insights of Hegel and Heidegger about the temporal present-past-future structure of thought or the subject; (2) continental thought dooms itself by pretending that it can continue to talk intelligibly while getting rid of the concept of true statements, irrespective of social construction -- that’s why so much continental philosophy is bad.
McCumber gives to the analytic tradition that philosophy must cede ground to science on much of its old territory, but insists that there is one job (at least one, but he discusses others) only philosophy is uniquely situated to do, and that is the “situating” of reason and knowledge as such, especially their being situated in time. It’s a very Hegelian idea: after science, philosophy becomes the practice of understanding — to be sure, with handy dandy new post-Fregean analytic conceptual tools — the historical becoming and meaning of knowledge in the context of the present. This is a job that can actually have relevance for the public (you know, all those weird people outside the walls of academia?).
In contrast to Hegel's important but mainly retrospective concept of philosophy's task, Heidegger’s contribution to temporalizing philosophy is recognized as especially relevant to the future orientation, to questions of possibilities before us. But McCumber does not let Heideggerians off the hook for ignoring the importance of inferential logic to the coherence of what they may offer.
McCumber is only claiming to point in a promising direction, he does not offer a specific solution to the deep problemitization of truth by continental philosophy, for example. But he does argue convincingly that a new group of American philosophers are coming up who are addressing the problem in a way to give hope for the future prospects of philosophy as a relevant discipline that might return to public engagement. This includes for example the analytic-trained Robert Brandom who has been busy producing work yielding an extraordinary synthesis of Frege and Hegel. Paul Redding is another notable philosopher who explains how analytic thought for its own internal dialectical reasons is having to reconsider Hegel against whom the discipline was superficially defined by Russell.