Stephen Hawking, in his recent "The Grand Design", says that philosophy is dead.
He then goes on to tell us how science now has those answers.
I agree that acres of Buddhist philosophy is as dead as can be, but we must also remember that it served its purpose, it served as a springboard for later ideas. The problem does not lie with the philosophy, but with the people working with it, expanding it, the people who are supposed to keep the plant alive.
There are times when I worry about what the West will do to the Dharma, and there are also times when I am quite confident that we will mess with that plant, that we will feed it all sorts of fertilizers ..... and that it will grow.
If we see Buddhist philosophy as including that which we see around us in the streets and in our lives right now, then that philosophy can be alive, healthy and vibrant. If we put it in a glass case to be oohed and aaahed at, then it will be a "problem".
On a more formal note - why is no-one writing Buddhist philosophy any more. Most other religions are churning it out by the box full. In some case that :new philosophy" is simply designed to move with the times, to change the belief system to go along with the shrinking gaps, a problem that Buddhism responds to rather well, in my view, it being far less paranoid and defensive about such issues.
Yes, we can be fresher, more innovative, some of the old deadwood needs to make way - no doubt about that. By that same token we can also return to some of the old philosophy, in some way we can be more conservative, more traditional.
I think Hawking is a bit quick out of the starting blocks