okay fine, lemme restate what’s going on here then. philosophy isn’t dead, but it’s reached a formal limit and can no longer be creative. by that i mean, given that the kinds of beings that we are, and the kinds of affairs we engage in, have not undergone any significant change in the last several thousand years - our biological and intellectual characteristics - we’ve reached an apex of the kinds of possible questions that can be asked and the kinds of possible circumstances we might find ourselves in which provoke us to ask such questions. for example, take the philosophy of mind. you have three major contenders in this field; materialism, idealism, and psychophysical parallelism. these theories not only provide the only possible explanations available, but they’ve also completely exhausted the language and concepts available to make them meaningful theories. so basically, no new questions can be asked now… and any philosophy happening in and around these theories will arrive at the same conclusions and dead-ends that have already been produced in the respective theory. same thing with ethics. pretty much covered. no new questions, and no new circumstances that might produce novel situations which would result in us asking new kinds of questions.
what i’m saying is, we, as a species, would have to undergo a significant and fundamental change physiologically before we would be able to ask genuinely new philosophical questions. now of course you’ll find all kinds of designer, new age hobby philosophers who think they’ve come up with something unique, or have solved some impending problem if only you’ll ‘think of it this way, instead’, and so forth. but this stuff is either using the same philosophical languages that have existed for thousands of years, or it’s just plain nonsense. or, it’s using the same philosophical languages and it’s just plain nonsense. more likely it’s the latter.
so when you say ‘philosophy will go on’, sure; people will continue thinking with the same language and acting in similar ways, as they’ve always done. what i’m saying is the last century and the next to come will involve only a recycling of old ideas, and the usefulness… or i should say the natural selection of what ideas will prevail… is going to be determined by a calculus already established - in general - by the theory of historical materialism. and i say this because HM is pretty much the only ‘philosophy’ that has survived a millennia of rigorous criticism. that is to say, there isn’t much about it that can be criticized by virtue of the fact that it’s an incredibly frugal philosophy that has much more in common with science than any other philosophy. almost entirely devoid of a priori theses and grounded directly, and only, in empirical propositions. that’s a tough nut to crack, homes, and if it’s survived the onslaught of analytical philosophy, well… nuff said.
if you want to listen to new philosophy and not just a greatest hits album, you gotta change the very fabric of space/time and everything in it… which ain’t gonna happen, so…