When I wrote, a few years ago, about the futures of tp, I don't think I brought philosophy into it, just purism and pragmatism. But the philosophy does support purism -- not as such (rather the contrary actually) but because it is a philosophy of incuriosity (People in a village, even if they could hear the dogs barking in another village, would not go to see what is happening or even call a question). O)n the other hand (as noted), it is a philosophy of constant change and so supports the constantly changing language. But not, of course, a conscious, thought-out, change (as we are wont to do) but a natural development, where the bottom rises and the top subsides (whatever those are in languages). So, the philosophy says, "Let it alone, don't keep trying to draw it into some fixed framework" -- either the classical one or some new radical one. If someone innovates out of need, leave it lie; itr will either catch on or it won't. If it doesn't, no paroblem. If it does, no problem, though the language has changed.
I. alas, am a Confucian (actually, a Dialectician, I suppose, but they fuse in some areas), so I keep insisting on what is set -- while, like a good Confucian, recognizing that developments can occur within that set.