> Unfortunately the authors of this piece don't actually make that latter argument.
Is this to imply there is a more-correct philosophy? I have no formal training in philosophy but I feel that to claim one philosophy is objectively better than another is a bit much.
Quality of thought as better. Internal consistency is but one measure of quality, given that you also want non-intuitive results (EG: Can't justify genocide accidentally with the way ethics is set up, even if all of the pieces of the argument are internally consistent.)
This topic overall reminds me I should write to an old friend with a phd in Philosophy and the son of a phd in Philosophy, a great mathematician (pity he didn't go for the phd in that) and a really excellent talmudist when he feels like it... he probably has thoughts on what they are saying.
Centuries of philosophical work are repeatedly refined, tested, contested, and expanded by subsequent thinkers. This interrogation of ideas leads to either strengthening or weakening certain schools. The effects can be seen in such topics as free will, materialism, dualism, ethics, political theory, epistemology, as well as the tracking of historical trends in what central ideas were under primary discussion, and when certain ideas were arguably considered "settled".
Within philosophy, it's often the case that accepting a certain argument as objectively better leads to digging deeper into the effects that ripple outward to other ideas an accepted better philosophy can inform and illuminate, often opening up new areas for philosophy to investigate that it hadn't before.
Many philosophical traditions simply don't measure up. That's not a crack at non-western traditions, most western traditions have also been discarded due to being nonsense. Quite a few more probably should be but are kept alive for non-intellectual reasons.
It is also judged by outcome matters, which is why the west still teaches Foucault and Dedirra, even though they are by far way less consistent than analytical philosophers (who are also taught)
One of the reasons that happened if that some correctly constructed Analytical Philosophical thought gets very non-intuitive results that seem to create exceptions, such as ethics of genocide, whereas classic continental philosophy, because of its room to breath, doesn't.
Hence why philosophy still has problems to solve to this day