Recently I've got into an argument with a friend of mine about a cliché, "What is the use of philosophy?". Well we didn't discuss it that much but I want to keep the argument based on some philosopher's reasoning rather than my own.
I actually really like the introduction of "History of Western Philosophy by Russell:
“ Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.”
But I thought considering the fact that the book has been written in 1945, there might be better and more up to date counter-arguments against this question and maybe even more elaborated ones. I have already browsed here, but answers there are either personal opinions (which as I said, I am looking for a reference) or improper from my point of view; Take Delouse's answer; he basically insults the person who asks such a question. I'd rather prefer a more disinterested argument as Russel's.
I am not asking for a book on the subject. But maybe a book that discusses the topic as part of its objective, like Russel's. Does anybody know any reference for it?