despite meaningful differences between Platonic philosophy and this analytic practice, I will argue that there is a meaningful through-line between them.”

It seems to me this sentence is missing a negation: there is NO meaningful through-line?

 by narrowing throw out all the richly bundled senses of a concept while keeping only the immediately useful—it's wasteful in its parsimony. It leaves not even a ghost of these other senses' past, advertising itself as the original bundled whole while erasing the richness which once existed there. It leads to verbal disputes, term confusion, talking past each other. It impoverishes our language.

cf. Seeing like a State, James C. Scott. This is the same problem of insisting on making things legible and taking too many shortcuts while doing so, throwing out all the babies with the bathwater.