“*After [more than three] years of studying philosophy at university, I finally heard a professor point out that there is a difference between asking “What do people call ‘knowledge’‘beauty’‘ethics’?” and answering questions like “How can I reliably attain the most accurate model of the world?”, “What does my cognitive machinery tag as “beautiful” (insert deictic pointer towards a family of emotional states), to what extent does this differ among cultures, and why is all of this the way it is?” and “What is my goal in life?” / “What principles would I choose behind the veil of ignorance?” / “What would I say if I were given the task to come up with a post hoc rationalization/’justification’ of my moral intuitions?”
Unfortunately, I couldn’t quite make sense of the [professor’s] explanation on why the first type of questions seem interesting to philosophers (as opposed to linguists or sociologists or evolutionary biologists). It seems to me that, for whatever reason, philosophers tend to spend the vast majority of their time focusing on the first type of questions, and I’m often genuinely unsure whether they even realize that there are other questions to ask. To me, going into pedantic details in regard to the first type of questions seems quite pointless. On the other hand, at least some of the questions in the second category seem like they deserve a ton of attention.”
— Lukas Gloor