I enjoyed the Hugo winning Hominids series, and I do think a philosophical idea can make a good start for a novel, provided you then construct a strong plot to illustrate the idea and strong characters to carry the action. To that I would add good wordsmithing.
But I'm not that fond of, for example, 1984, which stops the plot dead two-thirds of the way through for a big lump of political philosophy. Heinlein's early unpublished (at the time) We the People had the same problem. Heinlein learned better. H. G. Wells, on the other hand, forgot what he knew when he wrote his early classics, and his later novels are a mix of great story with undigested philosophical lumps. And Stapledon's The Last and First Men and Clarke's The City and the Stars are almost all philosophy and no plot.
I once interviewed comic book writer Jim Shooter, and he said that a story needs a theme. That's not quite the same as a philosophy, but I do feel a certain dissatisfaction with writers who are all plot and no philosophy at all.