This is rather a good response, but not perfect. Maybe I should publish the conversations between Nick Hoy and myself after the Q &A debacle.

Perhaps the best way of describing our cultural condition is – if I may be permitted an inexcusably clumsy phrase right at the outset – as one of agonistic hyperpluralism.

It is not simply that we live alongside and associate with people who hold radically different points of view (that would be garden-variety “pluralism”); nor is it that many of these points of view are so divergent as to spill over into the incommensurable, to the point of tearing away at the social fabric (that would be outright “agonism”). It is rather that we now lack even minimal consensus on the most fundamental questions of life, social obligation and political ends, as well as the means – the common moral and conceptual grammar, if you like – to resolve such widespread disagreement.