Et tu, Sarkus! I have a rather different view of philosophy. My main interest in philosophy isn't so much the 'existential' style 'How should I live my life?' questions. It's logic, epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of science. These help me understand how science helps us 'discover things about the material world'. What is 'experiment'? What is 'scientific evidence'? How does evidence 'confirm' hypotheses? How is it that strings of symbols acquire meanings? How do words 'refer' to extralinguistic things? What's the relationship between parts and wholes? What's up with scientific reduction? How should we understand causation? Stuff like that. It can be. The whole idea that something called the 'scientific method' exists and remains the same from instance to instance is a philosophical proposition that implies as much. The principles of logical implication seem to me to be objective in some sense. (Explaining the kind of reality that logic and mathematics have is another philosophical problem, this time metaphysical.) Many philosophical problems, such as the problem of induction or questions about universals, seem to be objective in some sense. They are certainly cross-cultural and we find Indian and Chinese philosophy discussing them from their own unique perspectives. I'm guessing that many of these same issues would arise for any space aliens that are sufficiently inquisitive. I'd include the question of how we understand reality among the foremost issues that philosophers address. And I'm not convinced that there's any clear and distinct boundary between science and philosophy. Science is just natural philosophy (the philosopher William Whewell coined the word 'scientist' in the 1840's) that has expanded to the point that it has its own specialists, university departments, professional organizations and scholarly journals.