There’s an element of truth to this critique, and I have felt for a long time that what is usually taught as “Introduction to Philosophy” should be taught as “Introduction to the History of Philosophy”.
However it’s also totally off-base in that philosophy, when it’s not being a total waste of time, is the examination of problems which are important but which can’t be solved by science alone. As such philosophical conclusions aren’t “true” and there is no “truth” to pursue or teach.
There are competing views with no truth value, like deontological and utilitarian ethics, but neither is “true” or “false” and it’s a category error to try to put them into those boxes.
Done well it’s neither science nor literary criticism, but rather the search for mental constructs which are useful or internally consistent.
There’s an element of truth to this critique, and I have felt for a long time that what is usually taught as “Introduction to Philosophy” should be taught as “Introduction to the History of Philosophy”.
However it’s also totally off-base in that philosophy, when it’s not being a total waste of time, is the examination of problems which are important but which can’t be solved by science alone. As such philosophical conclusions aren’t “true” and there is no “truth” to pursue or teach.
There are competing views with no truth value, like deontological and utilitarian ethics, but neither is “true” or “false” and it’s a category error to try to put them into those boxes.
Done well it’s neither science nor literary criticism, but rather the search for mental constructs which are useful or internally consistent.