Studying objective philosophy & its road to, and around, past answers ?
Yes & no.
The objective "philosophy course" (better spent outside academic learning for the majority) that I enrolled upon years ago
now was called a history course. And although I didn't fully understand why I nevertheless realised that I could learn
something from such a course and such a study.
For the years before I entered university were of "solitary dedicated study" outside of the mainstream.
Dedicated mainly in social sciences, psychology & environmental study, sociology, and Philosophy itself. With no particular
syllabus I could concentrate upon both historical AND problem solving, just for example the then ongoing major question
of whether sociology could-ever-be a science or would it always remain Just-an-art (= a "soft", non-science so to speak).
So before entering my college course I did have much "exposure" to then current study material to virtually
make-up-my-mind about what philosophy is and what it could be.
I'd had (had) a few "a-ha moments" principally-but-not-exclusively around the use & deployment of "criticism", as well as
the usual use & deployment of logic and rational argument (as you can imagine, both that & more -like demonstrated belief-
was evident in a lot of social science & sociology studies!).
I became a firm "believer" in using both logic and criticism in all my studies...especially (but not exclusively) within Philosophy.
Of course before, during & after finishing college I "joined" and remain joined as a confirmed adherent of what was then, in Europe, the objective Philosophy as originated earlier by the Emeritus Philosopher karl Popper.
He was the one who in the last century "pulled together" the competing & struggling strands of the then (not just) academic
Philosophy & philosophers, but also "pulled together" a better road so to speak for a whole host of humanities, of arts and
of science subjects or disciplines.
I won't go into my indebtedness here for the WORK that (that) Philosopher PUT IN, his "happy time" figuring out complexities
which would have probably TAKEN MANY DECADES to achieve success, so to speak.
Plenty of other philosophers & STUDENTS alike have been similarly influenced, some whether-they-know-it-or-not !(?)
There are really just TWO PARTS to Popper's philosophy,
1. The full use of
1a. Logic and its close relative, rationality.
1b. Criticism (and its close relative "history").
Neither both of these are not subject-to-limitation such as present problems are (as to past problems so to speak..).
More can be said on this including (1b) where PRESENT CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE can be differentiated from the status quo.
2. Present interactive knowledge & problem solving.
And by what I have already said above it should come as no surprise to envisage the equal importance attached to
solutions to (2) as also to any associated solutions via the past knowledge of let's say, well known written answers
AND their well known and/or written related questions.That there is a give-and-take between 1. & 2. here above I
intend to show with examples (with the majority of similar examples already given here..).
1+2 (a present example I will present...)