To be fair, I think that what Bradatan is saying is precisely that we need to embrace pluralism in philosophy, so Weinberg’s first cautionary note seems misplaced (to my view, at least).
As to the second cautionary note, Bradatan says ‘rational argumentation,’ not argumentation simpliciter. There is considerable debate in argumentation theory about whether rational modes of argumentation are valued over emotional, narrative, & other (putative) modes, & Bradatan taps into this important discourse (see Michael Gilbert, for example). We should not specialize at the expense of excluding contentful modes of argument that could, if embraced, enhance knowledge.
As to the third note, advising epistemic humility in a discipline that is overwhelmingly white and male is, in my humble opinion, simply good advice.
Thank you for posting on this thought-provoking critique.

I worry that without the emphasis on arguing and clarity and rigour, it gets very difficult to distinguish professional philosophers from anyone with a soapbox, which in turn makes it difficult to justify our existence to others. “What do you do?” “Oh I’m a philosopher. We don’t really have a specific aim or method or skillset or co-ordinated enterprise, in fact lots of things which don’t look like classic philosophy do count as philosophy. It can be too restrictive to limit ourselves to the categories of arguing and finding justification for our beliefs, you know?” just doesn’t really convince non-philosophers that what we’re doing is a worthwhile enterprise, that any progress can be made, or that there’s any measure of one being ‘better’ at philosophy than they were before. Platitudes like ’embrace the messiness’ sound great until someone comes along and wants to claim that counting blades of grass, conspiracy theories and Michael Bay movies are just part of the philosophical messiness too, and without the emphasis on argument I really don’t know how to tell them that they’re mistaken.

“Argumentation” is ambiguous. It could mean, in a narrow sense, just the exchange of reasons. Or, in a broader sense, developing relationships and a shared life so that people are able to appreciate each other’s reasons when they are exchanged.

Two neighbors might be arguing about, say, why the donkey was shot. They keep talking and talking, offering this reason and that, but with each side just digging in their heels. But then, they also take breaks from talking and sit down to eat meals together, or read poetry or watch a movie together – in general focus on sharing their lives together – which then helps them understand the reasons they offer when they talk explicitly about their disagreement.

Academic philosophy has become too focused on argumentation in the narrow sense. Where in academia can one learn the practical skill of how to live with people one disagrees with so that the exchange of reasons can be better appreciated by both sides? Or for that matter, in what class normally can one learn how to go through the tough process of changing one’s habits once one overturns a deeply held belief? Bradatan’s point, rightly, is that we need to incorporate art, movies, religion, etc. into philosophy so that philosophy can be about argumentation in the broader sense.

What Bradatan leaves off how to do argumentation in the broader sense while philosophy is one discipline among others in academia. It is much easier to do argumentation in the broad sense outside academia, where one simply speaks as a person and not as a representative of this or that discipline.

I read the original article, and I mostly disagree with the author’s claims.

The author writes that “much of contemporary philosophy” works with “a strong purist assumption.” This is a paradigm example of a straw man. Who commits to the things the author attributes to the ‘purists’? Who are these ‘purists’? Names, works, schools, institutions?

It is very clear that argumentation and rhetoric cannot be separated. Argumentation is not simply about logical rules, and providing reasons and evidence to support claims. Rhetoric and literary style are inseparable in the business of trying to convince others that what we are saying is truthful and acceptable. Logos and pathos are taught hand in hand in argumentation and critical thinking courses.

I personally value more careful (not necessarily peer-reviewed but still somehow edited) philosophical publications than e.g. provocative and dichotomous arguing that is abundant in social media. We really do not find such disrespectful and black-and-white discussions in respectable philosophical fora. Journals are far from impeccable, but they do practice ‘A good argument is a good argument is a good argument’ type of thinking more than online or newspaper discussion boards.

I agree with Prof. Bradatan’s call for intertwining literature and philosophy. Many classical philosophers have done this, and beautiful writing is today as great as it has been for ages. But it is important that literary style does not lead to obscure writing or mystifying philosophical content. Contrary to what the author says, a quest for high quality argumentation does not intend to make us “operate on some superior, angelic plane, where their [the rest of humankind] earthiness and their mundanity never follow them [philosophers]”. Apply the basic rules of argumentation theory, and define concepts you are using clearly – this is not self-aggrandizement, it is simply being fair.