For myself, I enjoy all of Katz' columns, in the same way that I enjoy reading almost anything that has a semblance of readability (and that's not to say that Katz writes with only a semblance of such -- I find the grammatical problems mentioned by others to be far less prominent than might be. Certainly less prominent than the grammar/spelling problems in most of the posts). I think that the most useful aspect of this article is that it makes you think. Read the posts. Even the people who disagree often have something to contribute to a discussion about the issue -- how to categorize something so vast, and quite possibly an entity innately immune to the human tendency to categorize (for more on that, read the vast "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker). If I found myself in Katz' admittedly privileged position I would almost certainly take advantage of the opportunity to create discussion around topics that I would like to know more about. And this is precisely what he has done with this piece. Whether he agrees with the categories he has proposed, and whether he sees them as the be all and end all of categorization, I'll leave to the philosophers.
This is not a shining example of grammatical perfection, but please ignore that for now. Thanks.