The horror in The Shining is in Jack’s descent into producing nothing but repeated text while isolated in the Overlook Hotel — paralleling how philosophical writing frequently spirals into dense theoretical abstractions that add little to genuine understanding. Much like navigating the Overlook Hotel, the relationship between philosophy and futures studies can be disorienting and complex. The topic is the future, or futures, and that is where we enter the maze. Discussions about the metaphysical nature of time, the existence of future possibilities, or the limits of human knowledge have frequently been dominant in human thinking about the future. However, we need not lose our minds in the disorienting conceptual space.

There are two different ways of understanding the connection between philosophy of futures studies. Philosophy of futures studies analyzes the field of research itself, focusing on questions about how the field generates knowledge or insights. Such analysis attempts to understand how claims about possible futures can be generated and justified, what such claims mean and how they function in our knowledge systems, and how the methods of futures studies could be clarified. This philosophical analysis of the field centers around several core questions that deserve our attention.

First, we must understand how futures studies works in practice – the topics researchers study, the goals they pursue, and the methods they apply. For example, a scenario workshop might investigate near-term technological changes, while a research project might analyze long-term social transformations through interviews and Delphi studies. But listing methods isn’t enough. We must ask why researchers adopt particular approaches and how curiosity, research interests, funding structures, policy demands, and stakeholder expectations shape the field.

Second, we need to examine what problems and tensions the field faces. Many formulate multiple scenarios to reflect uncertainty, yet policy-makers often seek a single, reliable forecast. If a futures report presents a range of possibilities, how does it support concrete decision-making? Here we see that the goal of supporting decisions doesn’t always align with methods and theories based on multiple futures and unpredictability. Another tension arises around justification – how can we validate methods that aim not at predictive accuracy but at revealing different ways of understanding possible futures?

Third, we must analyze how the field’s approaches can be justified. This isn’t about finding absolute foundations, but rather understanding how approaches align with their goals. If a research project creates narratives of the future, we must ask what these narratives are based on and how they relate to evidence. The necessary condition for justifying a method is its usefulness with respect to a goal – a method that clarifies cultural shifts may not offer precise forecasts but could spur critical reflection among stakeholders.

Fourth, we need to examine how new approaches might be developed. This has three aspects requiring analysis: The pragmatic aspect asks whether approaches from other fields should be adopted. The epistemic aspect examines how we can modify existing approaches to better suit futures studies’ goals. The meta-aspect questions whether we should reconstruct the goals themselves, as sometimes a method becomes so influential that it begins to shape the field’s objectives.

In contrast, philosophy in futures studies considers the integration of philosophical insights into the discipline itself. In this case, philosophy serves as a source of knowledge among other sources of knowledge that we use to understand futures. For example, theories of ethics are a prime example of this: What is a desirable future needs to be assessed through some ethical or axiological principles.

The selection of philosophical questions relevant to futures studies requires attention because not every philosophical issue deserves equal attention. While metaphysical questions about the existence of possibilities or ultimate nature of time remain philosophically exciting and interesting, such considerations do not substantially advance futures studies in a way that modern philosophy of science can advance. The focus must rather be directed toward philosophical questions with connections to the real research practices of the field: How do certain methods and goals of research align together? What role do values play in shaping research outcomes? How can futures studies maintain coherence while allowing different approaches?

Take Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) as an illustration. The method analyzes four layers: surface issues (litany), system/social causes, worldview/discourse, and deep myths/metaphors, and how the deeper levels shape, constrain, and build the more surface levels. Movement between the levels is the significant element in this method. The method assumes that deeper cultural patterns shape how people envision futures, and that by exposing these patterns, we can open up new possibilities. When researchers identify a worldview or myth in their analysis, what exactly are they picking out in the social world? How do we validate the presumed connections between layers, for example, how a particular myth shapes a worldview which then constrains conceived futures?

Science must be seen as a dynamic practice rather than a fixed system of rules. This means that a purely logical or formal analysis of scientific reasoning is not enough. Science operates within social, institutional, and value-laden contexts, which influence not only the selection of research questions but also the interpretation of results and other parts of research processes. Needless to say, this is familiar in participatory methods in futures studies. Values shape what counts as evidence and how findings are assessed. Similarly, values are embedded in research design, risk assessment, and data analysis. This suggests that science is not isolated from broader social and ethical considerations but is instead deeply entangled with them.

Consider questions related to justice — a core topic if we are ever to touch desirability issues. One might argue that justice can be understood in two ways: as maintaining existing rights and systems or as working toward a better, more just society. The first approach focuses on stability and small, gradual changes, while the second challenges unfair structures and pushes for wider transformations. This difference matters for futures studies. If justice is based on today’s rules, future changes will likely be slow and controlled. But if justice is seen as aiming for an ideal future, then the focus shifts to wider reforms that rethink how society is organized.

Contemporary political philosophy offers concepts that can be used in futures studies. For example, Rawls introduced a thought about so-called veil of ignorance, which hides one’s social position. Then we ask, given such veil of ignorance, how would we wish the society to be? We do not know who we are, given the veil, and thereby we need to look beyond our current positions and what benefits us in those positions. Now, we can apply such mental device to imagine futures that are just. However, we can also understand morality as based on reasoning together, not just individual moral intuition or imposed rules. This approach is relevant for participatory methods in futures research, where open discussion shapes possible outcomes.

One fundamental question in futures studies is how we should handle uncertainty in our knowledge about the future. Consider the Delphi method. The method raises core epistemological questions about the nature and justification of futures knowledge. The key philosophical tension lies between the need to support concrete decision-making and the inherent plurality and uncertainty of future possibilities. When structured consensus-building through iterative feedback is used, we must examine both the pragmatic value (does it help stakeholders make decisions?) and the epistemic foundations (what kind of knowledge can such a process generate?).

To make futures studies really work, we need to find clarity concerning its conceptual heart. Rather than relying on the usual philosophical approach where we simply try to ask for the meaning of a concept simpliciter, we must analyze how different concepts reinforce or constrain each other. Consider, again, CLA which rests on interconnected concepts like litany, systemic causes, worldview, and myth/metaphor. The layers that the concepts refer to gain meaning through their relationship to one another. Concepts must also serve both researchers and diverse stakeholders. Futures studies is a peculiar field in that we create the future through action, and the study of the future cannot be detached from the future itself — we can create it through research (although most things happen despite the field).

Futures research could benefit especially from comparisons with historiography, where researchers reconstruct events they cannot directly observe. Historians interpret evidence to form plausible narratives, just as futures researchers gather signals, data, and expert insights to envision possible futures. The openness of the future introduces further complexity. Different methods create competing trade-offs. Roughly, forecasting seeks short-term precision but struggles with long-term complexity, whereas scenario planning explores multiple pathways but lacks predictive relevance. The philosophical challenge is how to handle such trade-offs without losing methodological rigor.

The madness in The Shining arose from isolation and obsession with writing things that did not relate to surrounding reality, as Jack Torrance lost himself in endless repetition that had no connection to the reality of the Overlook Hotel maintenance. Philosophy of futures studies faces a similar risk — becoming trapped in grand metaphysical questions that are not connected to research. But by grounding philosophical analysis in the actual practice of futures studies rather than abstract speculation, we can illuminate genuine methodological and conceptual challenges and help the field develop. And yes, we are the caretakers – we have always been the caretakers. No one else is in a better position to clarify futures studies except the scholars in the field. Whether we like it or not, philosophy is all around us and has always been.