1704, is the year that Isaac Newton published his revolutionary work Opticks; this is also the date that Philosophy, as a means of evaluating the world, conclusively died. The work looked at the phenomenon of light, not through introspection propositions, but through strenuous experimentation and analyses. Newton went so far as to stick a bodkin under his eye to see the effect it would have on his ability to see and register light. No matter how many logical premises a philosopher erects, s/he will never be able to come close to providing this sort of insight about reality.
On the same note, there is no solely philosophical argument that can be made to conclusively demonstrates that two objects dropped from the same height, but of different mass, will hit the ground at the same time. Nor that the earth orbits the sun. (In fact, based on observations, a logically philosophical argument could be made to argue against the heliocentric model.) For any of these things empirical data must be gathered. When it comes to actually proving the soundness of its premises, philosophical studies today, have to always yield authority to the results of other academic disciplines.
Apologists will insist that my definition of philosophy is a strawman; that I’m stretching its definition in such a way, so I can then turn around and denounce the entire thing when it naturally fails to live up to my faux-interpretation. I don’t consider this as much of a refutation, but more of an attempt to sidestep the conversation.
Philosophy was once a necessity in academic thought, because it was the pith of academia. There was once a time when one individual’s musings would have been sufficient to overturn whole paradigms worth of our relations with reality. However, for the last three centuries, the center of knowledge has gone through a transitional period; that is to say, the worthy functions of philosophy have evolved to more systematic and critical disciplines of thought, and what remains is a thrown away shell of sophistry.
It is no longer enough to ponder about ideas, and be satisfied by a speculation simply because it sounds philosophically plausible. No!–there must be a convergence on ideas, and these convergences must be verified with broader (and narrower) ideas still, backed by a plethora of tangible empirical evidence. Otherwise no reliable account of reality has been given, and to continue to build possibly false premises on top of an unverified structure is the antithesis of loving wisdom; it is a desecration of wisdom.
Please don’t misunderstand what I’m trying to say. I am fully aware that a great deal of our species intellectual development of the last few centuries–even millennia–has been spearheaded by philosophers, and philosophical intrigue. And at the most fundamental level, it can be argued that all people of functioning mental facilities use philosophy to evaluate the world around them. What I mean when I say philosophy, is strictly confined to philosophical scholarship.
Indeed, Philosophy, as a viable academic discipline, is dead. But knowing the nature of man, its shadow is bound to haunt the lecture halls for generations to come.