How should philosophy be done?

Philosophers tend to have very different and strong opinions on how philosophy should be done, so I decided to open the question here.<br><br>Should philosophy be a science, and if so how should it be? (The term "science" is commonly used for philosophy in continental Europe). If not, why? How should philosophy look in that case?<br><br>Also, if philosophy is to be a science, then which one? In countries where philosophy is a science, it is its own scientific field. For example in Germany, the philosophical sciences are split up into philological sciences, religious sciences, and actual philosophical sciences. I am not sure if there are countries where philosophy is part of another science and how that would work.<br><br>The second question I have concerns the method of philosophy. Some philosophers believe in systems and constructed theories, some believe in deconstructing and nipping at the edges of the truth, like Heidegger. But this also depends on the topic. In ethics, no one wants a system. Over the last 50 years, a lot of philosophers who wrote systems and grand theories have gotten flak from their colleagues. I am thinking of people like Habermas, Apel, Neurath or others who were interested in value theory and wrote long and complex systems with little attention from other disciplines. <br><br>One example which I know of is the Vienna Circle, who were a group of philosophers, logicians, and natural and social scientists who wanted to construct a theory of everything. Today however, the Vienna Circle is remembered more for their ability to foster cooperation between the sciences, something the rest of our profession could definitely learn from.