[seanewest]

There is a whole other sector of philosophy that is almost completely divorced from science that is often called "Continental Philosophy". It deals with all of the classic problems -- meaning, love, truth, etc. The U.S. tends to not hear a lot about it, but it's huge in the non-english speaking world. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

[robotresearcher]

It's also frequently pretty silly.

For the science-trained reader it can be painful to read. For example a popular rhetorical technique in this area is to take a well-defined scientific idea and use it as if it was a metaphor, then use the metaphor to imply some claim, then claim that the scientific idea entailed the claim.

Also, explaining things in an elliptical and opaque way is often considered OK, since it provides a certain kind of experience for the reader. In the Anglo-American tradition, clarity is an objective, rather than giving off a vibe where you kind of get the idea.

These guys point out some howling examples where technical terms are abused to the point of meaninglessness:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861971249/o/qid=97...

[abruzzi]

Yup. Modern philosophy is usually divided into Analytic and Continental. Analytic is by far the most common in England (its birthplace) and the US. Continental (as the name implies) is most common in France and Germany. It can be much more abstract. Phenomenology and Existentialism are two strains of Continental philosophy (Husserl for the first, and Heidegger, Sartre, and Kierkegaard for the other.)