David Brooks' column on the state of moral criticism betrays his ignorance of the history of philosophy ("The end of philosophy as we have always known it," Opinion, April 8). While current thinkers may be more focused and overt, one may readily find the themes Brooks identifies within the writings of Nietzsche, the existentialists and others.

Brooks believes current thinking on the subject of morality challenges the "new atheists," whom he believes assign unwarranted primacy to pure reason. Has Brooks actually read these "new atheists" he purports to know so well?

Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell provides a compelling critique of these issues. Far from denying the importance of emotion, intuition and evolution, Dennett embraces them as fundamental to social and individual development and worthy of serious academic consideration.

Brooks acknowledges the power of applied reason to "override moral intuitions." He might have added that it may also confirm them.

Emotional interpretation may precede rational understanding in the evolution of our species and in the development of an individual's mind, but this merely renders it prior, not superior. In the current trends in moral analysis, those who mistake their emotional perceptions for reasoned conclusions bear the greatest challenge.

Robert Hammer

Salt Lake City