Does modern philosophy still make valuable contributions that create new knowledge, or are contemporary philosophers just busy analyzing existing knowledge?

If we assume that philosophers do create new knowledge (that cannot be found in the natural or social sciences), why is it so difficult - or even impossible - to detect progress in the philosophical debate ? My impression is that philosophers are still debating the same basic topics they were busy debating 50 or even 100 years ago, and that there is little hope that they will come to a conclusion.
Why is that so? — Matias

I think there are several answers to these questions. Philosophy often considers some of the most basic, and most important (to us) issues. Often there are no clear-cut answers, but discussion helps to grow our understanding anyway, chipping away at the main issue. This is progress, of a sort.

There is also the matter of "contemporary philosophers just busy analysing existing knowledge". I'm sure this takes place too. On this forum, it seems there is a division between those who just enjoy discussing philosophy, and who often have no familiarity with academic philosophy, and those who are academically-qualified. The two groups have aims that are a little different; I don't know enough to offer details.

I think the academic philosophers (if I may call them that) often spend time reconsidering the wisdom of the philosophers that came before us, rehashing old reasoning, and reaching the same old conclusions, as though they were/are unavoidable. It's as if they're learning by rehearsing the old arguments. And there's nothing wrong with learning!

Aside: it's worth remembering that not all philosophy is known to all philosophers. So we need to rehash old insights to learn ideas that are new to us, even though, perhaps, others learned the same things in the past. We are not born knowing Cratylus; we have to learn about him. :wink:

Non-academic philosophers, on the other hand, delve into philosophy because they enjoy it. To them, many ideas are new, as they don't have the historical background that academics have. And new ideas are always interesting! They also sometimes indulge in throwing around ideas, new and old, to see if they fit together, and how. This too is learning: progress.

Edited to add: Oh, and the point of mentioning these two groups is to observe that their aims - the reason(s) they come to philosophy - are a little different. So both groups make progress, but they measure it differently. For me, for example, progress is discovering a new idea or a new connection between ideas.

The growth of understanding and learning among philosophers (individually and collectively) is what we achieve; that is our progress.

Aside: it's worth remembering that not all philosophy is known to all philosophers. So we need to rehash old insights to learn ideas that are new to us, even though, perhaps, others learned the same things in the past. We are not born knowing Cratylus; we have to learn about him. — Pattern-chaser

This is an interesting point because it is often assumed that in philosophy's progress such ideas are relegated to the dust bin of history. But Joseph Margolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Margolis) cogently argues that both though and the world are flux.

It is worth noting that until recently analytic philosophers all but ignored the history of philosophy, the assumption being that they had progressed to the point where the ancients could have nothing to teach them.

You said:

This is the domain of analytic philosophy, philosophy of language and ordinary language philosophy. — Janus

I take it that "this" refers to:

Philosophy gives us knowledge of how we think and of what the limitations of our thinking are, and it gives us this knowledge through analysis of linguistic practices and also through introspective analysis of our intuitions of meaning and reference. — Janus

But such things are not exclusively the domain of analytic philosophy or modern or contemporary philosophy. It may be that analytic philosophy gives us new ways to think about these things, but certainly thinking about these things is something philosophers did long before analytic philosophy.

As to whether their way of thinking is a mark of progress remains an open question.

But such things are not exclusively the domain of analytic philosophy or modern or contemporary philosophy. — Fooloso4

When I said that those things are the domain of analytic philosophy I was not thinking "exclusive domain", nor was I thinking that analytic philosophy is itself entirely restricted to Anglo-American philosophy of the 20th and 21st centuries. I was just trying to outline the general areas in which philosophy could be said to be progressing is all.

As to whether their way of thinking is a mark of progress remains an open question. — Fooloso4

Perhaps, but one of the criteria for progress I was using was whether new ideas and ways of understanding the world, both the natural and human world, are being created, and it seems fairly obvious that this has happened throughout the history of philosophy, and is still happening today.

why is it so difficult - or even impossible - to detect progress in the philosophical debate ? — Matias

I suggest that many individuals strongly detect progress. It's just that philosophical progress is more controversial. If you want to win over doubters, just be able to blow them up with a new weapon.

I read early Heidegger and late Wittgenstein as dispelling confusing superstitions. But no one has to understand them or take them seriously. There's plenty of wiggle room for excuses and counterattacks. So philosophical progress is like cultural progress. For some having a different bathroom situation is moral progress. For others it is something else. I think it's the same with philosophy. What you say about the progress or not in philosophy is also the presentation of an identity and a taking of sides.

I'd say that the difference between philosophy in the 19th century (and , say, the first half of the 20th too) and the situation today is that at that time philosophers used to be also public intellectuals, they opened - as philosophers - new horizons of thoughts and then fed these insights into the public debate, whereas professional philosophy has become during the last decades a rather esoteric occupation: professionals sitting in their "ivory tower" and their "bubbles" talking at each other, citing each other, debating ultra-subtle questions that have no significance for the public. — Matias

I see your point. I wonder if our public intellectuals are just no longer called public intellectuals. Who are the folks that frame the situation for people these days? The internet changes everything. We can watch videos of anyone. No one needs a degree or a license. They just do or do not succeed winning attention from others.

That said, I've enjoyed 2 of Lee Braver's books,A Thing of This World and Groundless Groundslee. They are relevant to me. I read them for pleasure, insight and in the pursuit of wisdom.

He's a professor. So to me it's clear that some professors out there are doing it well. Admittedly his books aren't for everyone. They aren't as juicy as politics. But for those of us with the itch for clarity....

It is worth noting that until recently analytic philosophers all but ignored the history of philosophy, the assumption being that they had progressed to the point where the ancients could have nothing to teach them. — Fooloso4

:lol: :rofl:

It is not clear whether you are laughing at my claim or at their presumptuousness. In support of my claim:

Because analytic philosophy initially saw itself as superseding traditional philosophy, its tendency throughout much of the twentieth century was to disregard the history of philosophy.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/#SH5c

I'd say that the difference between philosophy in the 19th century (and , say, the first half of the 20th too) and the situation today is that at that time philosophers used to be also public intellectuals, they opened - as philosophers - new horizons of thoughts and then fed these insights into the public debate, whereas professional philosophy has become during the last decades a rather esoteric occupation: professionals sitting in their "ivory tower" and their "bubbles" talking at each other, citing each other, debating ultra-subtle questions that have no significance for the public. — Matias

it seems to me that the ideas of the French postmodern philosophers have had a massive impact over the past 50 years on political thought, political correctness, the advent of the social justice warrior, attitudes toward gender and race, etc. Slavoj Zizek is just one example of a contemporary philosopher who is also a public celebrity.

It is not clear whether you are laughing at my claim or at their presumptuousness. — Fooloso4

:blush: At their presumption! :up:

it seems to me that the ideas of the French postmodern philosophers have had a massive impact over the past 50 years on political thought, political correctness, the advent of the social justice warrior, attitudes toward gender and race, etc. — Joshs

All these movements have their proximate origins in the US (in the "civil rights movement" as well as in the Sixties with all those ideas about "empowerment") ...
Derrida or Deleuze - as far as I can see - have little or no influence on these movements, their impact is much more in the spheres of art or literary criticism.

Knowledge isn't created ... it's discovered.

Philosophers mostly explain things rather than discover things ... nowadays. But I think that that's always been the case. Philosophy moves a lot slower than science does. And that's fine. Developments in other fields, such as science, are thanks to philosophy after all.