In general, everyone can have a personal interpretation for words. But usually we try to come to a shared point of describing/interpreting/observing/defining/interpreting the meaning behind words and usage of language. That can help us to understand each other better.

Philosophy is a word heard by many. By thinking about history and looking at writings left from great philosophers, we might come to a point that they often had some level or special mixture of seriousness and casualness. They had the role of cultural leadership, even if not intentionally. Mostly they had suffered in their own time. Something that was problematic wasn't just their problem. Their concern could be: something that can be very better with just a little change or effort, but people hesitate of that better thing and stick to worse.

They had understanding of Math (reasoning and analyzing, not just throwing some formative nonsense calculation as these days many think Math is quick calculation) and physics.

They had art, creativity, language and poetry, or at last, musical poetic grammar raised from the heart observable when they speak.  Kind-hearted and deep looker.

Many of them passed the line of selfishness. They already forgot and finished with their ego and wishes that come from the dark side of self. They were spiritual too.

By a quick search on Google, I found an explanation for philosophy provided by “Florida State University department of philosophy” :  “Quite literally, the term “philosophy” means, “love of wisdom.” In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other”.

On Wikipedia, it says. “Philosophy (love of wisdom in ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions.”

However, I'm not 100% agree with Wikipedia about that word “systematic”. These days, systematic things are very serious. Or at least it is very dependent on the interpretation of words : systematic/system and their relationship with seriousness and the interpretation of the word seriousness if that relationship plays a considerable role. Harsh version of seriousness can damage creativity and art, as art as the root of all needs freedom. If there is any discipline in that it should be voluntarily, self-motivated and through attraction not punishment of any sort.

What is the position of philosophy in software and computer science:

In every move, every plan, every process or task as well as computerization, these are influential and noticeable: intentions, directions, approach, implementation, considerations, overalls, advice, perceptions, and more.

 Where we are going, what we want to do, what we understand, and how we want to do them and which way and why? , and answers to all those types of questions are very related to the above.

The approaches in every phase, step or any relevant topic or section can be divided into two major categories. Right to left and left to right. As a similar example in software development, one opinion is to have an absolutely architectural approach and the other opinion says let's just do it, similar to what they call it agile methodology.

However, the above example might not be the best or most relevant.

 There could be other ways as well. For example, a spectrum of approaches between major approaches, or multidimensional comparison and options, let's dive into but from the simplest point of view. Two directions.

One direction is to aggressively start doing, with minimum knowledge and consideration, or at most with available pre-thought solutions without any adjustment or customization. From the base and foundation of urge and unawareness with lack of attention to wisdom or thoughtfulness. From the point of emptiness towards an imaginary success if it's achievable with such an approach and what they mean about success.

Another approach stays on the other side, that comes from the point of awareness, wisdom, and patience with attention to the requirements and risks.

One comes with exclusivity and dominance, and the other comes with openness and care with consideration to effectiveness and efficiency and optimization as well. 

 What we should choose in reality. Reality is what we make. If the reality of your situation is not desirable, then change the reality of your condition. Adjust what it should be. To make something suitable for reality we adjust many things, but eventually there will be a question, that:  are we going from “ok” towards solving the “not ok” or from the base of “not ok” we want to solve the “not ok” however, maybe, even, we might not know “what is solving the 'not ok'” even regardless of “do we know how to solve it or not”.

When we get closer to implementation, there is still a difference between  pure practical and philosophical-practical approaches.

In a purely practical approach, possibly for some people is the meaning of :  the job has to be done no matter how or anything else. Then slowly even those people may realize, “hmmm,... it looks like we can't just close our eyes to other matters and do the task”. 

But those that are doing from the base of care towards the solution to the problem, they open their mind via patience and thought, and effectiveness. Effectiveness optionally via the concept of meta, such as meta programming. They create concepts such as reuse, architecture, modularity and again reuse and call (procedure call or module reuse or call). Maybe because they rely more on experiences and thoughts and wisdom than relying on fingers for fast typing the codes or copy and paste.

In the end, the position of philosophy in computer science in comparison with not having it, is similar to building a very large house with 2000 laborers fighting, arguing and swearing or with one architect, two engineers, some machines and 30 other workers. And minimum aggression.