why philosophy will never move forward until...

i would like to elaborate on a vision for a new kind of philosophy at some point, but since that is a very long, exhausting, and comprehensive task, i will start by addressing the simplest and most important, yet most overlooked obstacle preventing philosophy from moving beyond its present analytic-continental divide. while philosophy may often be criticized for being elitist (which it is, and i'll clarify this later on), the defining trait of philosophy over its entire history, regardless or era or school, has been its quest for knowledge. people often say that knowledge is power, and even though philosophy, especially before marx and his criticisms of philosophy for being too passive in its approach, did not explicitly empower its followers due to knowledge, meaning that its followers did not necessarily use the knowledge gained from philosophy for leverage in exerting social or political power, it nevertheless made its followers *feel* empowered. even as philosophy splintered and disintegrated after the ancients and moderns during the 19th and 20th centuries, all of those movements made their followers feel empowered in some way. instead of believing in a universal harmony of sorts, these movements made their followers feel empowered via rebellion, whether it be political (marx), religious (nietzsche), or intellectual (continental/postmodernist). even analytic philosophy, as apolitical and objective as it claims to be, is inherently empowering in that it claims to follow the path of science and thus is a superior way of interpreting the world. instead of feeling inferiority in areas that it cannot cover due to its style and approach, it is elitist by putting its objects of study on a pedestal and dismissing other areas as being unworthy of study because they cannot be studied with the analytic style and approach. the one path attempting to reconcile the two -- contemporary pragmatism -- is empowering, just in a watered-down sense, compromised sense, meaning that while it does make compromises and thus "surrenders" certain aspects of certain areas, it still believes that we are working towards something meaningful and can have hope for the future without having to make huge sacrifices and encounter huge setbacks before attaining a new level of progress. the underlying problem with all forms of philosophy is that they start with elitist intentions and goals and work, using whatever means they have at their disposal, towards fulfilling these intentions and goals. the roots of these elitist intentions and goals are as follows: in ancient and modern (as in modern philosophy, not modern as in contemporary) times, philosophers believed that reality was compatible with their intentions and goals, e.g., using philosophy to prove god's existence, etc. when philosophy splintered and disintegrated, it did so by rejecting present reality but allowing philosophers to create their own reality, and sometimes, by forcing their own reality on "reality", causing "reality" to change to something more desirable. analytics returned to conventional notions of reality, but no longer laid claim to being able to explain it all the way that ancients and moderns believed they could do. as such, philosophy remains at an impasse: continentals believe in creating their own reality, analytics believe reality exists but cannot be accessed to the degree we need to in order to make claims about certain areas, and pragmatists believe we should act like reality exists but ultimately admit that people create their own realities to some degree -- pragmatism is in practice closer to continental than analytic, being more like a more practical version of continental while acknowledging some of the achievements of analytic without feeling the need to further explore them.

my solution is as follows. continentals have literally sabotaged areas of social and political philosophy due to analytics' unwillingness to address those areas since they fall outside of the areas in which they can employ their style and approach. following the tradition of philosophy's elitism, continentals have continued to force their radical agenda while assuming that it can be compatible with "human tendency", and that there is no standard for testing the validity of their claims to truth because there are no universal truths, but rather, we are all making our own truths because we are all creating our own reality. this is something that must immediately be addressed, as continental philosophy's denial of reality makes it impossible for them to be held accountable for their espoused beliefs and causes normative claims to be viewed as a target of our criticisms of current political systems and an enemy of creating the truth we want to believe in instead of being an objective barometer by which we can work towards achieving realizable change, even if this means compromising some of our ideals in the process. pragmatist richard rorty came to similar conclusions about continentals, "In the last fifteen years of his life, Rorty continued to publish voluminously, including four volumes of philosophical papers, Achieving Our Country (1998), a political manifesto partly based on readings of Dewey and Walt Whitman in which he defended the idea of a progressive, pragmatic left against what he feels are defeatist, anti-liberal, anti-humanist positions espoused by the critical left and continental school, personified by figures like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault." of course, it should come as no surprise that, "Although Rorty was a hardened liberal, his political and moral philosophies have been attacked from the Left, some of whom believe them to be insufficient frameworks for social justice." but returning to my solution, i believe that the following must occur in order for philosophy to once again play a meaning role in the world (and in the process, refuting the notion that "philosophy is dead"):

1) analytics must abandon pretensions about what domains their methods can cover, and realize that social and political philosophy are areas that demand immediate attention, regardless of "sufficient" method or not.

2) since analytics believe in an objective, external reality, there can be assumed to be an approximated range of truth within which social and political goals can be realized

3) this range must be thoroughly addressed using all possible data and perspectives, from climate change to cognitive psychology to social theory, and ultimately be determined through an exhaustive approach agreed upon by consensus among leading analytic philosophers along with experts in all fields pertinent to political systems (political scientists, geographers, environmental scientists, energy experts, public policy makers, politicians, economists, psychologists, etc.). it should include many forms of rigorous investigation (and hopefully keen judgment as well in order to synthesize a coherent plan from such a wide array of information and approach from so many different disciplines).

4) it is more than likely that this determined range will not be satisfactory for mankind for at least the next 50 years. thus, for the first time in its history, philosophy will claim a truth that is not empowering, but rather is *explicitly* humbling (humbling due to startling conclusions about reality, not about an inundation of knowledge or lack of ability to acquire certain knowledge). this can be contested by claims that the holocaust created a reality too horrific for philosophers to justify, but the holocaust in-and-of-itself did not constitute a philosophical movement. rather, philosophy led up to the holocaust (in the context of its time, this philosophy could be interpreted as being "empowering" to a certain group of people), the holocaust happened, and then philosophers were left to philosophize about things in its aftermath. but because as an event it was rather sudden and ended up being "defeated" by other people, people took it as something to learn from and move on from. by claiming a protracted event (e.g., climate change over many decades or even centuries instead of a few years) and by having it get worse before it gets better (similar to like in sports how they say that sometimes you have to lose first in order to learn how to win) in all likelihood (thus, climate change will not end up being "defeated" by people, but will be a scenario of people collectively having defeated themselves), claiming a truth that is not empowering would for the first time result in an entire movement of philosophy that would be labeled as "misanthropic".

now, it should be obvious why this change has yet to occur. not only would analytics have to violate their own conventional style and approach, but the ends would turn out to be "misanthropic", and what discipline would want that label attached to them? however, the perception that this is "misanthropic" is incorrect, as in fact in actuality undertaking such an approach would likely result in more beneficial outcomes than undertaking an "idealistic" approach from continentals. the idea that people cannot differentiate between perceived "misanthropy" and real misanthropy is a testament to the stupidity of our species, and a detriment to our existence and the lives of future generations. perhaps investigating what "human nature" is would shed more light on this, but once again, that would cause analytics to have to go outside of their comfort zone and make determinations that would likely be severely criticized and rejected by the majority of people due to their ill-perceived implications, not due to a lack of rigorous investigation and approach. but yes, i am advocating that philosophy must take itself off of its pedestal, go against its tradition, and become "misanthropic" in order to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people because these means that the ends justify the means. after all, what could be more empowering than keeping people who would otherwise die, alive? unfortunately, i have the feeling that just like philosophy failed to prevent the holocaust before it happened, philosophy will fail to adjust and plan according for the future to best optimize realizable change to help the greatest number of people in the wake of global problems of the 21st century. but philosophy is just an extension of people, so ultimately, philosophy is not to blame, but rather, it is people and our very own "nature"; the failure of philosophy to change its ways is indicative of people fearing to be perceived as "misanthropic". thus, maybe it can be said that it is "human tendency" for people to choose to not be perceived as "misanthropic" even if it is detrimental to the species rather than be perceived as "misanthropic" even if in reality you are helping other people. or, perhaps people are just inherently optimistic about certain things that they cannot satisfactorily prove one way or another. or, it's possible that people cannot bear to stand the thought of having to endure an entire lifetime of degeneration for our species before it collectively as a whole improves because people can only think within the span of their generation or their lifetime, at best. or, maybe it has something to do with the anglo culture in which analytic philosophy is predominant (and on the flip side, something with european culture which prevents continental philosophy from changing its ways -- an issue that i didn't address because in my opinion, for a number of reasons i won't get into here, continentals are even less capable than analytic of changing their ways when it comes to social and political philosophy). or finally, perhaps it is the wealth of first world nations that allows for the avoidance of social and political philosophy (analytic) or the idealization of it (continental) that preoccupies us, preventing us from focusing on practical matters in the future as we are either distracted by other areas of interest or are too wrapped up in creating our own realities and idealizing the future. whatever it is, there is a reason why philosophy has not gone in the direction i have suggested above and it is unfortunate that such is the case, but i suppose that is part of life.