ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces the heart of the argument for a highly controversial way of understanding philosophy proper. I argued that many conceptions of philosophy can’t accommodate what is sometimes called the paradox of analysis. One should have a grasp of a philosophical question before one tries to answer it, but on some conceptions of philosophy that grasp should make the answer to the question obvious. The answer isn’t obvious. I then introduce what I call a master argument for the conclusion that fundamental philosophical truths are compatible with wild skeptical hypotheses—a claim that, if true, further narrows plausible conceptions of philosophy.
