The view within the humanities of the discipline of philosophy as it is currently practiced is that it is an obscure branch of human inquiry, disconnected from the central concerns of the humanities (indeed some philosophers, such as Richard Rorty, have based significant portions of their careers pandering to our fellow humanists' disdain for our discipline). Yet on the rare occasions that central topics in philosophy are discussed in the newspapers, or works of analytic philosophy reviewed that are directed at general audiences, they tend to be received with great enthusiasm. For example, the most e-mailed piece in today's New York Times is an article about free will. The article broaches no new ground, and is basically a short explanation of the problem of free will of the sort one would expect to hear in an introductory philosophy class. Yet it clearly resonates with the ordinary readership of the New York Times. In recent years, some excellent analytic philosophers have written books directed at this readership, not just the ubiquitous Daniel Dennett, but also philosophers who have forged their reputations writing for more specialized audiences, such as Earl Conee and Ted Sider, and Paul Boghossian. The extremely positive reception of the work done by these philosophers provides some evidence that the skill that makes for an outstanding specialist philosopher translates to addressing broader audiences. In fact, I suspect that the philosophers who are considered to be more on the literary humanities end of the philosophy spectrum (e.g. John McDowell) would be particularly ill-suited to the kind of public philosophy that Conee, Sider, and Boghossian have done so well. Though lucid work on traditional topics in philosophy is not well-received (or understood) by humanists in the United States today, we are beginning to see some evidence that there is appreciation for such work outside the walls of the academy.