The real problem with giving a philosophical lightweight and poseur like Critchley a public platform is the damage it does to the image and reputation of philosophy, including, importantly, the Continental traditions in philosophy. I linked in my earlier piece to a couple of good criticisms, but here are a few more that have come my way:
Roman Altschuler (who, by the way, had the most interesting defense of Critchley last time around) tries to give a charitable reading of the silly column, but can't sustain it, to his credit.
Jean Kazez has a patient critical discussion of the 'substance' of the column (though, to clarify, I was not and am not worried about Critchley's credentials--those are all in order [PhD in philosophy, teacher of the subject, etc.]--but about his philosophical competence as evidenced by his work. Kazez's critique nicely confirms that worry I thought). She has more thoughts here.
This blog--whose raison d'etre reflects, alas, an all-too-common parochialism of some Anglophone philosophers--nonetheless has an apt "shorter Critchley":
What is a philosopher? This one philosopher, Thales, fell into a well. He was looking at the sky. This is a metaphor. Silly philosophers. Water clocks are stealing your time, except only if you’re a lawyer. Lawyers have no souls, but they are successful, unlike PHILOSOPHERS. Silly philosophers, you have time, but you also don’t, but mostly you do. Your heads are always in the clouds. This is important: PHILOSOPHY KILLS. This is because Socrates once died, and he was a philosopher. Also, Bertrand Russell didn’t get a job once. Because of blasphemy! Silly philosophers. You are so anti-establishment and whatnot. This is why the Athenians killed Socrates. Were they right? I dunno. Whatevs.
"STFU" (to use the rude blog lingo) may be the right response to a bullshit artist like Critchley, but it is important to remember that he has essentially nothing to do with the best Continental traditions in philosophy.
And, finally, a word from Nietzsche on philosophers and lawyers:
[Philosophers] all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic...; while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed, a kind of 'intuition'...that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact. They are all advocates [Advoktaen] who resent that name, and for the most part even wily spokesmen for their prejudice which they baptize 'truths'--and very far from having the courge of the conscience that admits this, precisely this, to itself....