I'm a big fan of philosophy, but I find much of it useless, esp. the old time philosophers since the field of Evolutionary Psychology and Neurobiology answers all of their ponderings. Evolutionary Psychology does not get media coverage from the Marxist leaning American mainstream media, so many people still believe old-time philosophers are still valid. Here is the international Evolutionary Psychology headquarters: http://www.hbes.com/
One example of an obsolete philosophical pondering in whether we have free will. But, Evolutionary Psychology has shown us that evolution simply drives the brain to function in ways that maximizes reproductive success. As such, our natural inclinations are set for such a goal. Second, neuro-biology has shown that our brain at the micro-level is just a computer program, where the ones and zeros in the binary code are analagous to the patterns of synapses in the brain. The speed of nerve conduction in the brain is analagous to the processor speed, front-side bus speed, PCI bus speed, and so forth in the computer, and the amount of neurons in the brain is analagous to the computer RAM, cache, and hard-drive size. Thus, humans have no more free will than does a super-computer.
But, getting back to the title of this thread, we have modern philosophers now, many whom I still think are useless because they ignore or are unaware of the answers evolutionary psychology and neuro-biology provides. But one philosophical perspective that I believe has validity is the claim that we really cannot know reality in the absolute sense:
Details behind this argument are at http://www.simulation-argument.com/ABSTRACT. Those who believe suitably programmed computers could enjoy conscious experience of the sort we enjoy must accept the possibility that their own experience is being generated as part of a computerized simulation. It would be a mistake to dismiss this is just one more radical sceptical possibility: for as Bostrom has recently noted, if advances in computer technology were to continue at close to present rates, there would be a strong probability that we are each living in a computer simulation. The first part of this paper is devoted to broadening the scope of the argument: even if computers cannot sustain consciousness (as many dualists and materialists believe), there may still be a strong likelihood that we are living simulated lives. The implications of this result are the focus of the second part of the paper. The topics discussed include: the Doomsday argument, scepticism, the different modes of virtual life, transcendental idealism, the Problem of Evil, and simulation ethics.