************************
I wonder how Gödel's view of philosophy relates to my own. I'm not sure.
In my own view, there are a number of great intellectual structures that obviously constitute powerful and far reaching vehicles for systematic knowledge.
A crude delineation of these would correspond roughly to Departments in a University: mathematics, physics, statistics, law, linguistics, etcetera. A deeper delineation of these involves subdividing such crude categories, and recognizing overlaps.
A certain kind of intellectual development must take place before such vehicles for systematic knowledge can emerge.
The hallmark of the relevant kind of intellectual development is a particular form of what should be called philosophical thinking. Here one focuses on the choice of fundamental concepts, the drawing of fundamental distinctions, the framing of methodologies, etcetera.
In this kind of philosophical thinking, there is a great deal of experimentation, and concentration on "fruitful" paths. Fruitfulness is measured in terms of how pursuit of these paths moves us closer to the emergence of powerful systematic knowledge.
This is the critical place where my own view of philosophy differs considerably from professional philosophers.
A certain critical level of such development, through philosophical thinking, is needed for a vehicle for systematic knowledge to emerge. After this critical level is achieved, the vehicle attains a certain amount of autonomy. At some point, the vehicle enjoys an existence independent of philosophy.
Normally, at that point, the associated philosophical activity wanes, and the emergent vehicle is regarded as wholly outside philosophy.
However, there is always a very considerable opportunity to continue with the philosophical thinking, even after the vehicles have long since attained an autonomous existence outside philosophy.
(Generally speaking, those involved in the direct development of such vehicles will not engage in philosophical thinking, generally preferring to work within comparatively rigid frameworks.)
This is to rework and refine and expand the foundations through philosophical thinking, but fully armed with the techniques and insights that have come from advanced stages of development of the vehicle.
The most obvious, most dramatic, and most generally generally recognized example in "recent" times of this process was the emergence and development of mathematical logic, and certain aspects of computer science, through such philosophers as Frege, Russell, and such philosophical thinkers as Cantor, Turing, Gödel.
Some of the ongoing work in philosophy of science and philosophy of language and other areas are definitely viable candidates for such productive philosophy, but the case is certainly not yet overwhelming.
However, I hold considerable optimism for the future of such parts of philosophy, when (as is inevitable) smart people with the right mix of abilities and knowledge get seriously involved, perhaps in pairs or teams.
Obviously, this is a very outcomes based view of philosophy. One might called this *applied philosophy*. Nevertheless, philosophical thinking is an essential ingredient, and it makes sense to distinguish this kind of thinking from other kinds.
Why? Because a typical top researcher outside philosophy does not engage in such thinking, and is quite suspicious of it, and grossly undervalues it. However, the atypical top researcher, such as Albert Einstein, obviously engaged in such thinking at critical junctures.
Harvey Friedman