> I disagree that Philosophy should be some sort of objective tool to determine facts
In order to rely on words like “objective” and “facts”, you need the philosophical underpinnings that explore the assumptions, meanings, and implications of those words and what they refer to.
Philosophy isn’t a method for directly determining facts, but trying to determine what is factual is intrinsically linked to a philosophical foundation of ideas.
I agree and admit I probably didn't phrase that too well
>Philosophy isn’t a method for directly determining facts, but trying to determine what is factual is intrinsically linked to a philosophical foundation of ideas.
Absolutely, although I would add that it seems to me that the majority of people don't distinguish the axioms that underpin our current understanding of the universe (e.g facts and objective "things") as being strictly an upstream philosophical decision leading to our downstream science from just science itself.
In order to rely on words like “objective” and “facts”, you need the philosophical underpinnings that explore the assumptions, meanings, and implications of those words and what they refer to.
Philosophy isn’t a method for directly determining facts, but trying to determine what is factual is intrinsically linked to a philosophical foundation of ideas.