My first aim in this study is to investigate what a distinction should be based on that would allow us to categorise philosophical works. First, I examine the distinction between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. One way of doing this is to compare these two traditions in terms of subject matter. Although in the first half of the 20th century analytic philosophy excluded some of the basic areas of philosophy, such as ethics, aesthetics and metaphysics, in the second half of the 20th century this changed. These areas are now seen as central to the analytic tradition. Something similar can be said if one compares the two traditions in terms of writing style, use of metaphor and thought experiment, and style of argument. I argue that neither of these gives us a proper criterion for making sense of the analytic-continental distinction, which means that this distinction is not comprehensive enough to categorise philosophical works. Second, I discuss the distinction between history of philosophy and systematic philosophy, which is often used in Türkiye to group faculty members in philosophy departments. This distinction is also not promising for categorising philosophical works, because it seems to assume that a nonhistorical work is systematic, or that a systematic work does not require historical discussion. The third distinction, between philosopher-based philosophy and problem-based philosophy, provides the desired comprehensiveness. In this distinction, the criterion is whether the philosophical work seeks to clarify the views of a philosopher or whether it seeks an answer to a philosophical problem on its own. The titles of the philosopher-based works are usually of the form “The concept/problem of x in philosopher A”. The content of the work forces the writer to refer to one or more philosophers (or philosophical schools) in the title. The problem-based works, on the other hand, do not essentially depend on the views of other philosophers.

Using the distinction between philosopher-based and problem-based philosophy, I then examine the doctoral theses completed in Türkiye in the last 20 years. It is plausible to assume that the doctoral thesis is one of the most important (if not the most important) piece of writing in one’s academic career. In most cases, it determines later research interests. To carry out this examination of doctoral theses, I used the Council of Higher Education’s open thesis database. This research involved looking at the title, abstract and table of contents of the thesis. In some cases, it was necessary to read parts of the main text in order to categorise the thesis. 

This examination shows that philosopher-based theses have clearly dominated the philosophical scene in the last 20 years. However, this examination also shows that the number of problem-based theses has increased in the recent period. In order to evaluate this increase, I compare two approaches to doing philosophy. After discussing the contributions that both philosopher-based and problem-based studies can make to the philosophical development of the researcher, and the shortcomings that they can cause, I ask which of these two approaches is better suited to meet society’s expectations from academic philosophy. Failure to answer criticisms such as that philosophers only engage in abstract discussions or are stuck on figures from the past may result in philosophy losing its place in the academy. From this point of view, problem-based philosophy is better suited to making practical contributions to social needs. The recent growth of interest in social epistemology and the social philosophy of language are promising examples of how philosophy can respond to social needs.

In sum, problem-based philosophy is better at showing non-philosophers why philosophical problems are important by addressing these problems on their own, rather than through the mediation of a particular philosopher. In this respect, it is positive that there is a growing interest in problem-based philosophy at the doctoral level in Türkiye.