Philosophy is Bunk!

[Grendel]

[quote=""BWE""]

Science is applied philosophy. All fields of study are applied philosophy.[/quote]

Well, that's solves it all then. You've answered everything.

[quote=""BWE""]Where I that vast landscape of field theory that you'd like everyone to use as the basis for their ontology do I find the bit about how we go about determining what goals individuals should be pursuing? And also, what formula do I apply to determine whether or not to challenge your ontology? Especially since my ontology doesn't give a toss about yours?[/quote]

You'll find it here

[quote=""Grendel""]

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf
.[/quote]

[BWE]

[quote=""Grendel""]

Science is applied philosophy. All fields of study are applied philosophy.

Well, that's solves it all then. You've answered everything.
[/QUOTE]
Well, no. Actually, you've simply made an error. Learning roughly follows a never-ending loop of theory->practice->dilemma->theory->practice->dilemma etc.
The theory part involves philosophy. The practice part involves engineering and what Kuhn called "normal science". The dilemma part is when feedback alerts us to problems with practice and is the basic source of material for philosophy. You'd have it that dilemma could be solved by practicing harder rather than pbilosophizing.

As a matter of fact, the recent advances in physics have led us to a very sticky dilemma whereby our metaphors have failed us utterly and we are forced to do some very deep philosophizing in order to help us avoid self-destruction through the application of physics to a paradigm informed by those failed metaphors.

[quote=""BWE""]Where I that vast landscape of field theory that you'd like everyone to use as the basis for their ontology do I find the bit about how we go about determining what goals individuals should be pursuing? And also, what formula do I apply to determine whether or not to challenge your ontology? Especially since my ontology doesn't give a toss about yours?

You'll find it here

[quote=""Grendel""]

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf
.[/quote][/quote]

I looked but didn't see the logical process leading to a normative view. Can you point me to the passages that connect intention and physics?

[Grendel]

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

If all the chemist is doing is the equivalent of engineering, following a path already set by others then you are perfectly correct. However, that's not doing science, that's just cooking.[/quote]

That's not in dispute? To be a chemist you need never delve below the atomic level.

[quote=""subsymbolic""]If someone is a research chemist then the very idea of what a theory is has changed three times in the last century: starting with a hypothetico deductive model, followed by a falsificationist model which is now yielding slowly to a statistically based correspondence model. Each is a metaphysical stance on how to do science. [/quote]

Einstein didn't know about the new models. Do we need to revisit General Relativity? Neil deGrasse Tyson says they're bunk, all you need to understand science is black-ankle philosophy. As we are all perfect practitioners of black-ankle philosophy, born with the ability naturally, then thats a level platform.

Brian Cox says the same. That philosophy has failed because it cannot deal with counter-intuitive ideas (counter-intuitive to the human mind) He says that the Philosophers in order to be relevant need to be Science Communicators. So does the book and so do I.


[quote=""subsymbolic""]
That someone might be a chemist who is unaware of this doesn't mean they don't need one, just that they have accepted one without understanding or questioning it. So just to pick the first two, if you don't know the difference between the two key types of hypothesis you ain't a scientist. If you do, you are making a metaphysical choice when you pick which one to test. (or someone made that choice for you and you are accepting it on faith.)[/quote]

That's black-ankle philosophy, it's not in dispute. Philosophy trys to claim everything, every thought, every theory, as it's own. It's right by association, and you cannot speak or criticise it without first signing on as a philosopher. It's cant.

The book addresses the problems with Philosophy (Capital P). They're genuine problems. They're not related to modernism or post-modernism.

It's simple. The laws of physics are counter-intuitive. Philosophy cannot deal with it, it's totally ignored it so far. It's clinging to the past, the old school. It's irrelevant, no physicist uses it at all. They just use the black-ankle philosophy we all use. Feynman said that's all you need. If you want to understand reality which one would you trust first Camus, Satre or Feynman?

Metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

[Copernicus]

[quote=""Grendel""]

Science is applied philosophy. All fields of study are applied philosophy.

Well, that's solves it all then. You've answered everything.

[quote=""BWE""]Where I that vast landscape of field theory that you'd like everyone to use as the basis for their ontology do I find the bit about how we go about determining what goals individuals should be pursuing? And also, what formula do I apply to determine whether or not to challenge your ontology? Especially since my ontology doesn't give a toss about yours?[/quote]

You'll find it here

[quote=""Grendel""]

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... ust-go.pdf
.[/quote][/QUOTE]
I don't get it, Grendel. You start a thread stating that philosophy is bunk. Then you end up justifying your position by citing a book on philosophy that was written for philosophers. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that your entire argument is bunk.

[Grendel]

[quote=""BWE""]

As a matter of fact, the recent advances in physics have led us to a very sticky dilemma whereby our metaphors have failed us utterly and we are forced to do some very deep philosophizing in order to help us avoid self-destruction through the application of physics to a paradigm informed by those failed metaphors.

[/quote]

We agree

Philosophy has the problem, not Science. Science accepts counter-intuitive ideas with it's breakfast cereal.

Self-destruction? Where has Science shown the Universe is about to self destruct? Science reveals, that's all.

We do need to start on a NEW deep philosophy. But that's our own problem. All the species on earth that are philosophy free are incapable of bringing about self-destruction. Only the species with a philosophy has bought that about.

[Grendel]

[quote=""Copernicus""]
I don't get it, Grendel. You start a thread stating that philosophy is bunk. Then you end up justifying your position by citing a book on philosophy that was written for philosophers. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that your entire argument is bunk. [/quote]

Despite the self-referential criticism, I think you do get it. Self references can be valid references, Even when counter-intuitive. Ergo: your conclusion is invalid.

Bwahahaaaa

[BWE]

[quote=""Grendel""]

As a matter of fact, the recent advances in physics have led us to a very sticky dilemma whereby our metaphors have failed us utterly and we are forced to do some very deep philosophizing in order to help us avoid self-destruction through the application of physics to a paradigm informed by those failed metaphors.

We agree

Philosophy has the problem, not Science. Science accepts counter-intuitive ideas with it's breakfast cereal.
[/QUOTE]
All you're saying here is that our physical ontological position has new information to incorporate which is a definitionally philosophical problem.

Practice->dilemma->theory repeat.

Self-destruction? Where has Science shown the Universe is about to self destruct? Science reveals, that's all.

Our human metaphysics are still stuck in a pre relativistic paradigm. Using that paradigm to inform our goals while using physics which thus far are untranslatable into it we may well destroy ourselves. I think there is a legitimate call to action buried in your misunderstanding of the concept of philosophy though. We need new metaphors that allow us to recognize patterns of causation within a nonlinear landscape and the negative consequences of hierarchical, linearized approaches to problem solving.

We do need to start on a NEW deep philosophy. But that's our own problem. All the species on earth that are philosophy free are incapable of bringing about self-destruction. Only the species with a philosophy has bought that about.

[Copernicus]

[quote=""Grendel""]

I don't get it, Grendel. You start a thread stating that philosophy is bunk. Then you end up justifying your position by citing a book on philosophy that was written for philosophers. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that your entire argument is bunk.

Despite the self-referential criticism, I think you do get it. Self references can be valid references, Even when counter-intuitive. Ergo: your conclusion is invalid.

Bwahahaaaa [/QUOTE]
Not so. Your argument contains contradictory premises, so any conclusion based on those premises is valid.

[Grendel]

[quote=""BWE""]
Our human metaphysics are still stuck in a pre relativistic paradigm. Using that paradigm to inform our goals while using physics which thus far are untranslatable into it we may well destroy ourselves. I think there is a legitimate call to action buried in your misunderstanding of the concept of philosophy though. We need new metaphors that allow us to recognize patterns of causation within a nonlinear landscape and the negative consequences of hierarchical, linearized approaches to problem solving.
[/quote]

If we just bypass the word mis-understanding, which maybe a misunderstanding between us, then yes! I agree with you.

Provided: that you're using the word paradigm in it's bullshit-bingo interpretation and not the very specific meaning in philosophy.

Further: Physics is not untranslatable because of it's counter-intuition proofs. If it was I wouldn't understand it. Nobody would.

So, it's translatable ... but not by Philiosophy. That's the problem as you say. There are a number of concepts developed by science-communicators that are proving popular and successful.

The fact that the book was written annuls any personal sin of misunderstanding as I had no input into it. I don't stand between you and the book as translator.

[Grendel]

[quote=""Copernicus""]

I don't get it, Grendel. You start a thread stating that philosophy is bunk. Then you end up justifying your position by citing a book on philosophy that was written for philosophers. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that your entire argument is bunk.

Despite the self-referential criticism, I think you do get it. Self references can be valid references, Even when counter-intuitive. Ergo: your conclusion is invalid.

Bwahahaaaa

Not so. Your argument contains contradictory premises, so any conclusion based on those premises is valid. [/QUOTE]


But.. but, but ???

[plebian]

[quote=""Grendel""]

Our human metaphysics are still stuck in a pre relativistic paradigm. Using that paradigm to inform our goals while using physics which thus far are untranslatable into it we may well destroy ourselves. I think there is a legitimate call to action buried in your misunderstanding of the concept of philosophy though. We need new metaphors that allow us to recognize patterns of causation within a nonlinear landscape and the negative consequences of hierarchical, linearized approaches to problem solving.

If we just bypass the word mis-understanding, which maybe a misunderstanding between us, then yes! I agree with you.

Provided: that you're using the word paradigm in it's bullshit-bingo interpretation and not the very specific meaning in philosophy.

Further: Physics is not untranslatable because of it's counter-intuition proofs. If it was I wouldn't understand it. Nobody would.
[/QUOTE]

you don't. nobody does.

So, it's translatable ... but not by Philiosophy. That's the problem as you say. There are a number of concepts developed by science-communicators that are proving popular and successful.

The fact that the book was written annuls any personal sin of misunderstanding as I had no input into it. I don't stand between you and the book as translator.

this is just physicowanking. The premise that we don't have an ontology which lines up with physics only means that we don't have one. It tells us nothing about what that would look like. Also, I'm not convinced Schopenhauer's idealism is actually inconsistent. The problem is really with practical philosophy. The idea that because a bunch of the output from publish or perish factories is unimportant has literally no bearing on the issue the authors (you actually) are claiming to care about.

Look, I don't know how much physics you know. I know that you are lying to yourself or to us if you say you understand it. You may understand how some particular model works but I don't need any more information than that you are human to know that you can't use field theory physics to answer pretty much any question that may be put to you and that only a scientist not worthy of consideration would say that the big bang is proven fact. It's stupid and ignorant to say that. It shows a dramatic misunderstanding of the knowledge science actually does provide.

It is actually the real problem with philosophy is that there are people out there who can make statements like that without realizing the stupidity and flat out lie that sort of statement actually is. IOW, sensationalist physicists is the main problem facing philosophy today.

[Grendel]

All you have to do is leave my understanding out of it then? Forget what I personally believe. And for my part I will try to refer to the subject as objectively as I can.

That doesn't change the criticisms in the book. The book is being taken seriously by credible reviewers. So proving me a psychowanker doesn't change that. I gave a critical review link before I pasted the book link. That's about as distantly-fair as I could place myself from the book and still say I agree with it.


This is from the book:
Taking science metaphysically seriously, Ladyman and Ross argue, means that metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

It's a single sentence. I'll give a single sentence in translation, as objectively as I can.

Only primal entity exists and it's only attribute is motion, both are interchangeable. (Conserved)

I wouldn't call that sensationalism, would you?

So now? Give me your translation of that criticism because that's what you're objecting to? And it musn't be sensational because that's what you're objecting to

Also, but not important. I never said the big bang was fact. I accept the quantum model's explanation for this. And that's not a big bang. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Grendel]

By the way, I'm an electrician, nothing more than that.

[Grendel]

[quote=""plebian""]

As for not being able to speak prior to time zero, we have a photo of the universe when it was very small taken from what you would say was outside it's parameters.

No we don't. And even if we did, you would then be equating a bit of exposed photosensitive emulsion covered paper with ultimate reality. Kind of a drastic map-territory error if you think about it.
[/quote]


That's all any photo is? And I said photo, nothing more? Why is this a map-territory error?

Note: I wasn't saying because we can take a photo of the universe from 'outside' it's parameters then that was proof of time before zero. I was simply comparing two things that on average glance would seem impossible, not connecting them.

[subsymbolic]

That's not in dispute? To be a chemist you need never delve below the atomic level.

Oh? so you think it's only engineering if you don't descend below the atomic level?

Einstein didn't know about the new models. Do we need to revisit General Relativity?

We already did. You probably didn't notice.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says they're bunk, all you need to understand science is black-ankle philosophy.

You talk as if the man is an authority on philosophy. He's an astrophysicist and media don.

As we are all perfect practitioners of black-ankle philosophy, born with the ability naturally, then thats a level platform.

Even Google has no idea what you are talking about. You'll need to explain what black ankle philosophy is.


Brian Cox says the same. And again he's not a philosopher. Why should he be an authority way outside his very particular specialisation? Why do these media dons become a priesthood for the scientifically illiterate.

That philosophy has failed because it cannot deal with counter-intuitive ideas (counter-intuitive to the human mind)

Really?

He says that the Philosophers in order to be relevant need to be Science Communicators. So does the book and so do I.

The book says no such thing. Having people who gave up a career in science to instead communicate other people's science want to remake philosophy in their own image is merely a measure of their hubris.

That's black-ankle philosophy, it's not in dispute.

Oh good.


Philosophy trys to claim everything, every thought, every theory, as it's own.


No it doesn't. Philosophy is a distinct subject with its own history, toolkit and concerns. That philosophy tends to spin off other disciplines is a matter of historical record.

It's right by association, and you cannot speak or criticise it without first signing on as a philosopher. It's cant.

Bollocks. The key point is that logic is the fundamental tool of philosophy and if you try to argue without logic you don't get far. If you want to argue effectively without talking bollocks then you need some sort of training in critical thinking. Logic is to language as maths is to numbers. You don't want to use maths you will not get far with numbers, you don't want to use logic you will not get far with words.

The book addresses the problems with Philosophy (Capital P). They're genuine problems. They're not related to modernism or post-modernism.

No the book fusses about analytic metaphysics. Badly.

It's simple. The laws of physics are counter-intuitive. Philosophy cannot deal with it, it's totally ignored it so far.

But that's just factually false. CERN, for example, has several active philosophy groups working with cutting edge physicists working on how to get a handle on exactly these sorts of areas. Here's a few examples:

http://dailynous.com/2016/01/04/philoso ... -collider/

https://takingupspacetime.wordpress.com ... positions/

It's clinging to the past, the old school. It's irrelevant, no physicist uses it at all. They just use the black-ankle philosophy we all use.

They really don't. whatever 'black ankle philosophy might be.

Feynman said that's all you need. If you want to understand reality which one would you trust first Camus, Satre or Feynman?

No one who uses such lame rhetorical devices. Feynman actively discussed metaphysics and was an active advocate of falsificationism over the hypothetico deductive model - he did philosophy. Camus and Satre are continental philosophers. Can you not even distinguish between the great traditions in philosophy?

Metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

I love your picture of what philosophy is. Sartre and Camus - self subsistent individual objects. As for your model of causation; it would be funny...

[Grendel]

Well, I can see I've convinced you, and there's nothing left now but a slanging match.




You can catch up with me tonite (sat) at this pub. I'm a tall skinny guy with orange sunglasses on my head day an nite. No fret, I'm not an aggressive guy. You can tell me in detail why Grendel is a troll, and I can tell you why trolls walk around barefoot in the dirt.

See ya there .... Greg

CLICK: Half-Moon Pub, Harrow on the hill (1 Roxeth Hill, Harrow) ...



.

[subsymbolic]

[quote=""Grendel""]Well, I can see I've convinced you, and there's nothing left now but a slanging match.




You can catch up with me tonite (sat) at this pub. I'm a tall skinny guy with orange sunglasses on my head day an nite. No fret, I'm not an aggressive guy. You can tell me in detail why Grendel is a troll, and I can tell you why trolls walk around barefoot in the dirt.

See ya there .... Greg

CLICK: Half-Moon Pub, Harrow on the hill (1 Roxeth Hill, Harrow) ...



.[/quote]

It's more worrying that you have convinced yourself. It's simple demarcation. I will not tell you how to wire a plug...

Welcome to England. However, Harrow is a right royal pain to get to from Kent as it's inconveniently buried in the wrong side of London. I'll be picking a clock up from Slough at some point in the future, so if you are here for any length of time I'm sure something can be arranged. You may be trolling philosophy and all, but I have plenty of respect for your areas of expertise and I'm sure we could have a perfectly civilised time.

Just not Harrow! What must you think of us!

[Grendel]

I was a barman in the Half Moon when I was 23. (Food and accom. My day job was Hendon PNC tho I'm Australian) I lived in the Pub. I'm 63 now, and no wiser, only got a little brain.

I'm retired, but was passing over that latitude enroute, so stopped for a day just to re-haunt the old pub. Of course it's changed in 40 years. I loved the lane up the Hill, and the old King's Arms (?) at the top

Thanx for the kind offer and I would definitely have come down to Kent to see you (Rochester?) if I had planned it better and I had known you wouldn't mind. And likewise, if you hit southern shores, I have a small guest house, and you're welcome to stay (and family, friends) no charge. It would be great fun getting stoned and discussing the ephemeral logic of philosophy.



My place, save the link


.

[subsymbolic]

[quote=""Grendel""]

I was a barman in the Half Moon when I was 23. (Food and accom. My day job was Hendon PNC tho I'm Australian) I lived in the Pub. I'm 63 now, and no wiser, only got a little brain.

I'm retired, but was passing over that latitude enroute, so stopped for a day just to re-haunt the old pub. Of course it's changed in 40 years. I loved the lane up the Hill, and the old King's Arms (?) at the top

Thanx for the kind offer and I would definitely have come down to Kent to see you (Rochester?) if I had planned it better and I had known you wouldn't mind. And likewise, if you hit southern shores, I have a small guest house, and you're welcome to stay (and family, friends) no charge. It would be great fun getting stoned and discussing the ephemeral logic of philosophy.



My place, save the link


.[/quote]

I'll bear it in mind. Australia is high on my 'eventually' list.

[Iolo]

[quote=""Grendel""]Well, I can see I've convinced you, and there's nothing left now but a slanging match.




You can catch up with me tonite (sat) at this pub. I'm a tall skinny guy with orange sunglasses on my head day an nite. No fret, I'm not an aggressive guy. You can tell me in detail why Grendel is a troll, and I can tell you why trolls walk around barefoot in the dirt.

See ya there .... Greg

CLICK: Half-Moon Pub, Harrow on the hill (1 Roxeth Hill, Harrow) ...



.[/quote] Have one for me. Wish I too could make it!

[Copernicus]

[quote=""Grendel""]

I was a barman in the Half Moon when I was 23. (Food and accom. My day job was Hendon PNC tho I'm Australian) I lived in the Pub. I'm 63 now, and no wiser, only got a little brain.

I'm retired, but was passing over that latitude enroute, so stopped for a day just to re-haunt the old pub. Of course it's changed in 40 years. I loved the lane up the Hill, and the old King's Arms (?) at the top

Thanx for the kind offer and I would definitely have come down to Kent to see you (Rochester?) if I had planned it better and I had known you wouldn't mind. And likewise, if you hit southern shores, I have a small guest house, and you're welcome to stay (and family, friends) no charge. It would be great fun getting stoned and discussing the ephemeral logic of philosophy.



My place, save the link
[/quote]
You are doing the airbnb thing? We've used them and booking.com on our trips around the world. Too bad we don't have Australia on our itinerary in the near future. But you are near Brisbane, then, right? I almost visited DMB's daughter there. (I think she lives somewhere in the general area.) However, I came down with the flu at that point and had to stay on the ship when we hit that port.

[Grendel]

[quote=""Copernicus""]
You are doing the airbnb thing? We've used them and booking.com on our trips around the world. Too bad we don't have Australia on our itinerary in the near future. But you are near Brisbane, then, right? I almost visited DMB's daughter there. (I think she lives somewhere in the general area.) However, I came down with the flu at that point and had to stay on the ship when we hit that port.[/quote]

You'd be welcome.

Brisbane (the local slang name is Briz-Vegas, this is not meant complimentry heheee) It's about 500-550km round trip and I go there about once a fortnight. 2.5 hours each way.

I live in the Bunya Mountains which is a jurrasic forest isolated and left behind by evolution and the world. There are all sorts of weird plants and trees that you see nowhere else anywhere. A Bunya nut can weigh 10kg. A huge pine-type cone where each spiral segment contains a kernal-nut similar in shape to a Brazil nut but bigger.

A single bunya nut can have 100+ kernels maybe. But not eaten raw, cooked and used the same way as potato. It's a staple. I use it in coco-nut curries. One lasted me over two months. But it's not really a pine, it's more ancient. It dominates the forest.

[Grendel]

[quote=""Iolo""] Have one for me. Wish I too could make it![/quote]

Cheers mate

[ruby sparks]

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]Another way to look at philosophy is a collection of all those sort-of academic subjects that don't really fit anywhere. Philosophy is the storage for the odd bits and bobs we don't quite know what to do with, but which might one day be useful. [/quote]

Sort of like the leftovers then.

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]As soon as philosophers come up with anything that can be applied to anything, it gets broken out of philosophy and made into it's own subject. [/quote]

Yes, applied. Or tested, as in checked.

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]But all academic subjects all started as blue sky philosophy at some point. [/quote]

Yes. And perhaps all philosophy started out as thinking. So it would indeed be wrong to say that philosophy is bunk, just as it would be wrong to say that thinking is bunk. I think though what the OP is saying is not that philosophy is bunk in principle, but that it's not delivering anything much by way of its aims, to for example increase our understanding of the world. Its offshoots are doing almost all of that.


[quote=""DrZoidberg""]It's also funny that you are having a go at philosophy today of all times. There's more interesting things happening today in philosophy, than it has for 50 years. It's an exciting field again.[/quote]

Such as?

[DrZoidberg]

[quote=""ruby sparks""]

Another way to look at philosophy is a collection of all those sort-of academic subjects that don't really fit anywhere. Philosophy is the storage for the odd bits and bobs we don't quite know what to do with, but which might one day be useful.

Sort of like the leftovers then.[/QUOTE]

Or the stuff in your storage that you might one day have a use for, but aren't sure how. History is full of philosophical concepts that floated around for quite a while before being made into a coherent system. Atheism is a good example.

The Greek Diagoras came up with the idea 2500 years ago. Didn't really catch on. But the idea still kept alive in pure philosophy. Weirdly enough, by Christian monks. It wasn't until the 18'th century people started figuring out how an atheistic world can work.

Science is another example. The Egyptian doctor and philosopher Imhotep started the whole learning-through-experimentation. It wasn't until 5500 years later when David Hume came up with the bright idea that perhaps we don't learn the most by trying to prove our hypotheses. Perhaps, instead we should try to disprove them?

So don't look down your nose at leftovers. Who knows what might become useful? And most importantly, let the experts... philosophers... worry about it. Non-experts are non-experts. Perhaps we should just keep our ignorant mouths shut?

[quote=""ruby sparks""]

As soon as philosophers come up with anything that can be applied to anything, it gets broken out of philosophy and made into it's own subject.

Yes, applied. Or tested, as in checked.
[/QUOTE]

Philosophy is the only academic discipline that defines itself. So to check philosophy you still need philosophy. To check science we use "philosophy of science" which is philosophy.

I think it's helpful to think of academia as a hierarchy. Philosophy is right at the top, and which defines the subjects further down the tree. Just like a taxonomy of animals, the taxonomy of academic subjects works the same. It's basically evolution of human thought.

[quote=""ruby sparks""]

But all academic subjects all started as blue sky philosophy at some point.

Yes. And perhaps all philosophy started out as thinking. So it would indeed be wrong to say that philosophy is bunk, just as it would be wrong to say that thinking is bunk. I think though what the OP is saying is not that philosophy is bunk in principle, but that it's not delivering anything much by way of its aims, to for example increase our understanding of the world. Its offshoots are doing almost all of that.
[/QUOTE]

Philosophy isn't just thinking. Philosophy is about systematising thinking. I think Alfred Whitehead said it best.

"Philosophy is asking questions like a child, and answering them like a lawyer".

I think you are wrong. Karl Marx thought he was doing science. He wasn't. He was doing philosophy. He changed the world. Same deal with every famous philosopher. The Christian Kirkegaard switched it around completely regarding what kind of Christian faith is desirable. He changed the world. Nietzsche laid bare how empty Christian faith is. Changed the world. Lacan made us understand how we can't avoid thinking in dichotomies. Heidegger, phenomenology. Deleuze, you can't know who you are without other people to react from. It's such a long list of great philosophical insights by fairly recent philosophers. There's more happening in the field of philosophy than it has for a long time. Right now philosophy is super interesting.

Religion is being deconstructed by atheistic philosophers. That's a big thing. Metamodernism, is a new thing. Inserting biology into philosophy is a new big thing. Arguably evolutionary psychology... but in reality philosophy. Janet Radcliffe Richards is kick-ass. Meme theory, by Blackmore is philosophy.

It's just so much right now, it's impossible to list it all. Just because you're not well read on a subject doesn't mean it's worthless.