Philosophy is Open-Ended, All Other Fields are Closed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All fields of knowledge has their specific Framework and System of Knowledge, as such they are 'CLOSED' in that sense. There is only one exception, i.e. Philosophy-Proper as open-ended.

For example Science is very specific and closed with its specific framework, processes, assumptions, limitations, etc.
This is very necessary so that no one can intrude and conflate Science with anything else, e.g. religion, metaphysics, mathematics, etc.
Therefore no one can make a claim is Scientific without qualifying that claim to the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Thus Science is a CLOSED field of Knowledge.

The above applied in Science is applicable to all other specific fields and frameworks of knowledge, e.g. Mathematics, geometry, logic, legal, economics, psychology, medicines, etc. etc.

What is the critical result from the above is, no subject can claimed they have absolute knowledge of reality which is necessary in preventing theists from claiming God is real absolutely and others of evil to claim the Truth [with capital T].

On the other hand, the ONLY exception is Philosophy-proper which is all encompassing and thus will cover whatever gaps there are within each specific topics. As such Philosophy-proper is OPEN-ENDED without any specific framework.

Btw, one need to differentiate between philosophy-proper and pseudo-philosophy as an academic subject which may include specifics [edited].
But ultimately pseudo-philosophy [closed] is overridden by open-ended philosophy-proper.

Here is how Philosophy is explained as open-ended by Bertrand Russell;

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Thus in the application of philosophy of whatever X, it must always end with a question after whatever conclusion is arrived at from its closed-system.
This is in correspondence to the point that reality is open-ended.

Note the commonly asserted phrase 'Philosophy of X[whatever]' i.e. where 'philosophy' can be prefixed to whatever subject one can think of.

Views?

[Skepdick]

Philosophy isn't open-ended - it suffers from an identity crisis.

It wants to be rigorous, structured, well-thought out, precise. Philosophy strives to be "formal".

True open-endedness is informal. It lacks any structure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophy isn't open-ended - it suffers from an identity crisis.

It wants to be rigorous, structured, well-thought out, precise. Philosophy strives to be "formal".

True open-endedness is informal. It lacks any structure.

You are referring to academic and 'armchair' philosophy which are the bastardized forms of philosophy-proper.

Note I wrote in the above [confusing, now edited];

• Btw, one need to differentiate between philosophy-proper and pseudo-philosophy as an academic subject which may include specifics [edited].
  But ultimately pseudo-philosophy [closed] is overridden by open-ended philosophy-proper.

'Open-ended' need not be totally informal.
It can be pseudo-formal with loose ends.

Here is another view of the open-endedness of philosophy;

"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge--so I should contend-- belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

This No Man's Land is philosophy of Philosophy is open-ended by is anchored upon the formal framework of Science and other framework of knowledge.

[Luxin]

deleted 451