I continue to find philosophy more fascinating than science, but every now and then I take a step back and wonder if I really want to spend the rest of my life solving 2000 year old problems that look unsolvable by their very nature. Science seems to progress, philosophy never seems to. It might not be fun slogging away at a Linux terminal for five years in order to publish one number in a journal, but is it any more satisfying slogging away in a pile of 2000 year old texts coming up with one interpretation of a 2000 year old problem — one interpretation amongst thousands that all seem to be equally unsatisfactory?
The only problems of philosophy that appear to be “certainly” solved are those that have been decided by science. The design argument for God — largely discredited because of science. Kant’s views of space and time — discredited by non-Euclidean geometry. Various positions on the nature of consciousness and free will — discredited by advances in cognitive science, psychology and neurobiology.
I might have a lot of fun getting immersed in the word problems that constitute much of philosophy. But I should not expect to get anywhere with them. If I’m lucky I might manage to have my name mentioned by similarly obsessed colleagues. But truth? Strewth.