Basically, I realize philosophy is a weak point for me, in that... I don't understand what it even is anymore. 

To me, philosphy was always "Science, before we had science and the scientific method."

What is the point behind modern philosphy?

You equate philosophy to science?  I always put them on the complete opposite end.

It's been a good 10 years since I took my intro philosophy class but science is about things that you can prove and are certain, philosophy is not.

-edit-

A man drops a ball from the top of a building.  The physicist asks how tall is the building so he can understand how long it will take to drop.  The philospher asks why the man dropped the ball so he can understand what the man was thinking.

Put simply...

No, the philosopher asks "If the ball is to reach the ground, it must travel half the distance, and then half the remainder, and then half the remainder, on and on forever. How does this reflect on the nature of how we perceive movement and time?"

@Kasz:

The empirical sciences have usurped philosophy as ways of studying the world, so it's mostly been relegated to meditations on morality and the nature of thought and the relationship between our perceptions and the reality around us (and whether there is one)

Science is a subset of philosophy I thought?

At its core, philosophy is the act of participating in thought exercises in an attempt to develop a deeper understanding of complicated issues.

Philosophy founded science, at least in the Greek tradition that is foundational to Western norms (and thus to Global science as we know it) though the two often pursue quite alternate ends. We needed the metacognitive thinking that Socratic philosophy provided before we could begin asking the bigger analytical questions of how the universe functioned, though philosophy can more easily push out beyond the concepts that science can immediately grapple with (questions of the self, the "soul," thought, higher beings, good and evil as concepts)

Conceivably all of these are things that *could* be scientifically measured, but only with methods of information retrieval vastly more complex than we possess

I think science killed philosophy.

Philosophy lies in the controversies.

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that philosophy was never limited to the subject(s) of scientific inquiry, I would like to point out that even within the context of science, philosophy has its place. The scientific method itself is a philosophical construct, and contemporary science is by no means beyond philosophical critique; for example, the distinction between realism and instrumentalism - that is, the query of whether scientific theories are true representations of the world, or approximate guidelines and abstracted models with practical use (essentially, do atoms exist as real objects, or are they merely elements of a model meant to explain certain empirical observations?) - and the controversy of reductionism - the idea that the inquiries of every field of academic research can be (theoretically, if not practically) broken down and explained on a scientific base (as Mr Khan, and perhaps even the OP, seem to think) - are discussed as part of the philosophy of science.

And, as I and others have mentioned, the philosophy of science is merely one subset of the field of philosophy proper. Other prominent subsets include the philosophy of mind, language, epistemology, ontology, logic, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and so on.