[I] can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living. (Despite the obscurant framing of the question.)
1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification.
2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring our criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.
3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.
4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed:
(a) the logic of identity
(b) the logic of naming (including counting)
(c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)
(d) the logic of causality (physics)
(e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);
we failed to complete:
(f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operationism/intuitionism/action/e-prime)
(g) the logic of cooperation (morality)
(h) the logic of completeness (full accounting)
(i) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).
As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things.