>>12910250I don't think that your take is fair anon. Philosophy is not supposed to be pure empiricism because then it wouldn't be different than natural science kek. I think philosophy works on two levels:
1. Reasoning within a framework. The history of philosophy is that every so often heavy hitters come up with a new philosophical paradigm (Kant, Hegel, whoever), and these guys start a "school" where academics discuss the implications of certain ideas. The point being that there can be a RIGHT and WRONG when you accept the axioms of a certain philosopher and extend them to their natural conclusions.
2. Comparing between frameworks. The difficult part of philosophy, as you mentioned, is that many of the axioms aren't observable/disprovable. In this case the only epistemic ground you really have is looking for internal logical contradictions in a framework.
I think a lot of onions-ence posters look at philosophy and think that it is a waste of time because it is not useful for making lightbulbs or rockets or whatever but I do think that philosophy has its place and has worthwhile things to say.
