Philosophy is fascinating because, as much as any other sustainably persistent dialect of communication, it endlessly invokes novel parsings of existing ontological constellations in ways that assure the generative uncertainty as doubt by and through which methodological parsings are themselves guaranteed to persist.
Philosophy, that is, represents an optimal transmission medium for the languages (and logics) through which it expresses itself. In this sense it is no different to other technologies of communication for which genealogies of persistence are a function much less of intent and much more of reflexive patterns of linguistic artefacts that inhabit us every bit as much as inhabit them.
Big-ticket social and ethical questions are, in anything other than the most trivially unambiguous of instances, entirely inaccessible to the aspirational certainty and closure upon which much of philosophical discourse is grounded.
This persistent presence of explanatory absence in philosophy as the conspicuously unbounded narrative competition of performatively partisan battle is pretty much exactly what goes on in politics.
The difference and uncertainty of endlessly-extensible narrative differentiation becomes the kernel core here.