Merry Andrew wrote-
I assume, then, that you do not consider Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Sartre et al. as philosophers, nor their doctrines as 'philosophy'.
That's about the size of it I'm afraid.These men,and many others,all have different ideas and thus they all have wrong ideas unless just one of them has it right.Would you care to suggest which one that might be.I'm not very familiar with their works but I know enough about Plato's dabblings with mystery religions to suggest he was pushing a boat out from a port we wouldn't recognise or possibly can't even imagine.Sartre seemed to state the obvious and old Schoppy I thought a bit too bitter.One thing seems clear though and it is that none of them could really envisage a society like ours is in 2005 and therefore at a loss as to its inner meanings and the directions it is moving in.
They may well simply have provided the powerful of their day with justifications for their actions.
I would prefer to see modern philosophy as a sort of consensus emerging out of a vast scientific field and presided over by elected politicians advised by experts.One might call it the logic of events pursued on the "what works" principle.The disadvantage of that is that nobody can grasp it and for people who feel the need to grasp things,which I don't,it can be hard to take.
As Bob Dylan said-
"I can't provide for you no easy answers
Who are you that I should have to lie."