[annywhey]

1. Philosophers derive measures of truth from theories of truth. To accept the measure you have to accept the theory. If you question all the theories you simply arrive at well-trodden metaphysical debates within philosophy.

2. Argument over progress in philosophy is a debate borne of logical positivism, and it valorizes the goal of accumulating one ever-larger shared pool of knowledge as the only one that matters. But why does it matter?

Throughout history philosophers have often been more interested in personal development than grand collaboration. Empiricism just happens to have this property of creating tangible objects that others may study, which makes it apparently dominant in a world dominated by "whiz-bang" science - we're always looking at the next big thing. But merely knowing physical properties of the world does nothing to inform us of how to use them in a productive manner. That's where philosophy will perpetually re-enter as a way to add holistic breadth: the principles are often old, but they need a new adaptation to the circumstances brought about by technical changes.

And that also means that philosophers tend to be unpopular. If their nature is always to question how we're doing things, the natural consequence is that they are outcast for "rocking the boat". This is why it is important to draw some distinction between philosophy, the contemporary academic job title, and philosophy when it is practiced by ordinary people every day. The former is a strange outgrowth of the post-Enlightenment enterprise, the latter is something anyone can claim. Defining oneself as "artist", "maker", "entrepreneur" - these ideas encode philosophical purpose.