You might want to reflect a bit if the question is absurd because you don't like the person who asked, and if you subjected it to any sort of critical thinking. I'm guessing your prior analysis is full of confirmation bias, since somehow you tought I dismissed post-Wittgenstein philosophers, and still pick on the football analogy. Whether we debate about football, philosophy, science, politics, religion we won't establish the universal truth in a forum thread(but it's still a discussion). Texbook fallacy btw with that crap deductive reasoning: I don't like your analogy>so that's why you like CR>so you are wrong about unrelated topic.
In any case, I feel you and maybe others might have misunderstood the question. Let me clear things up and I think you'll agree we'll achieve a more productive discussion if I quote other peeps(not so pigheaded to put it gently) until you sort things for yourself out. I'm confident you can offer far more than "the question is stupid, YOU'RE STUPID"(proof being I actually got some reasoning after explaining some things to you).
the day philosphy "dies" is the day we die as a thinking, species
This may be true depending on what angle you're approaching the matter. I wouldn't equate tought process with philosophy: "These shoes fit me pretty welll" , "It stinks in here; Joao must have farted".
People should always retain their critical thinking, and my question doesn't renders the philosophical works written up till now obsolete. But take a look at what Joao said "Nazism, second war, mass media, cinema, post-modernism, nuclear age, in other words, several relevant changes that prompted a lot of philosophical work"
. Changes are what made philosophy progress and exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the poll option "No, it will evolve synchronously with society"
I'll finish this quoting Reza.
Even in the idiocracy age there is room for thought and yes it can be outside of the realm of 'science'. Meaning can be given to life even when science is discovering it's building blocks and mapping its progress.
Well this is precisely what I fear might be us "pulling mental gymnastics to come up with something "new" and edgy"
but it's a good example(the point of the thread) :thumsup:
I'm gonna put it this way. Let's say "Truth" is a big picture covered by allot of puzzle pieces. In the process to gain knowledge we simply take out a piece of that puzzle to see more of the big picture, and sometimes we only think we have taken a piece.
Now after humans became rational beings, the're line of reasoning was dominated by superstition and dogma, afterwards philosophical thought in it's modern sense emerged and some new progress could be made(but superstitious tought still clinged to it heavily troughout centuries, impeding it's development).
So the question of the thread is if a new kind of progress is in the making and in need of detachment from it's predecessors, the scientific thought.
What will be new game changers? Ultra advanced AI, human genetic enhancement, extraterrestrial intelligence?
I guess I'm just under the suspicion that our quest to remove those piece from the big picture will suffer if philosophical thought clinges to scientific thought the same way superstitious thought did/does on both.