I've been long pondering Eric Schliesser's discussions of synthetic philosophy, which he offers in this neat 2019 paper and in a more recent Substack post. In the post, Schliesser redefines synthetic philosophy and points to its problems and limitations:
I think your eclectic is kind of like a roving trader that sees arbitrage opportunities. But I am increasingly skeptical this is a good model for a discipline although it can work for individuals. (Tagging @NeilLevy10
This is the only kind of philosophy (for better or worse) I am capable of. But the most important thing it seems to me is that the synthetic philosopher is clearly not "doing several things badly that dedicated experts can do much better," because insofar as she is genuinely trying to bring about a synthesis, she simply isn't doing what the hyper-specialists are doing. The main question, then, is just whether an attempt at synthesis is worthwhile, as opposed to hyper-specialization. And the answer to that, it seems to me at least, is obviously "yes."
I think your eclectic is kind of like a roving trader that sees arbitrage opportunities. But I am increasingly skeptical this is a good model for a discipline although it can work for individuals. (Tagging @NeilLevy10
This is the only kind of philosophy (for better or worse) I am capable of. But the most important thing it seems to me is that the synthetic philosopher is clearly not "doing several things badly that dedicated experts can do much better," because insofar as she is genuinely trying to bring about a synthesis, she simply isn't doing what the hyper-specialists are doing. The main question, then, is just whether an attempt at synthesis is worthwhile, as opposed to hyper-specialization. And the answer to that, it seems to me at least, is obviously "yes."