This is a question about the pertinence and legitimacy of the approach towards contemporary philosophy. Increasingly it seems that philosophy has become divorced from common culture, which is sad as the subject has offered so much insight on, and for the sake of, society throughout the ages.
Since the advent of the 'new realism' philosophers do not, as I understand, attempt to build systems of philosophy but rather try to answer small and well-defined questions with consistency and through giving a justification for their own notions.
However, there seems to be several problems with this approach which I will present:
(a) One can be consistently false. In particular, if one focuses on small questions, chances are one is just not including anything within the remit which will challenge one's argument.
(b) If one begins from the standpoint of one's own intuitive notions, this is effectively reinforcing one's own opinion and bias. If two people give an argument justifying their opinion, this will not make either of them correct unless there is some sort of objective mediating process by which a judgement based upon arriving at an understanding of the inherent nature of the subject.
(c) Finally, without a concept of the Absolute or, say, Truth, and a derivation from first principles in relation to this, there is no way to know whether one is consistently supporting a delusion which is called by the fancy name of "intuition."
Because of this focus on the subjective notions of the philosopher, philosophy appears to have become generally detached from the contemplation of Truth which is required for any substantial insight into the universe or society. However, how can this mode of argument, if I have apprehended it adequately, have any legitimacy to it? If each philosopher is only justifying his own opinion, without having a collective shared concept on posssible perspectives on an Absolute from which this would be dialectically derived, doesn't philosophy just become a game in which each player is placing down his stakes but only to advance the furthest for little peices of trifles?