Does the philosophy say anything about the meaning of the words 'broadly' and 'simplistic' because with those two modifiers in place this can be argued as the tendency of philosophy (but then most things can be argued so who cares).

That certain philosophical questions posed by Socrates have remained philosophical in nature does not make the claim invalid, just as the fact that many of the writings of Aristotle dealt with subjects that are no longer in the purview of philosophy does not conclusively prove the claim.

I guess I would have to say if anything invalidates the claim it is just that they have not exactly established what it means to have a point, nor shown that philosophy in a unified state has such a point that covers the whole. I personally do not believe it has a point, but then I don't believe any of things that are being argued as outgrowths of philosophy have points either.