has philosophy lost its way?

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely shameless.

Pretty darn objectivist.
(and/or ironic)

[Iwannaplato]

Pick one:
1] my way or the highway
2] my way or else

3) my way or (implicity) you're an evil objectivist

[iambiguous]

Like shooting fish in a barrel?

Pick four:
1]
2]
3]
4]

Now, for extra credit, put them in the right order.

[iambiguous]

Why Is Philosophy Important Today, and How Can It Improve Your Life?
From clarity to tolerance: here’s your quick guide to why philosophy is important today, as well as how it can improve your life.
By Jack Maden from Philosophy Break

Philosophy is sometimes considered outdated — a perception not helped by the subject’s apparent obsession with reaching back over thousands of years to consider the works of ancient figures like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius.

Sure, I can imagine back when philosophy was first invented [Eastern or Western] enthusiasm ran high. On the other hand, in so many astonishing ways, as science pinned down the objective truth about the either/or world, philosophers were left with pinning down all the rest of it: art, religion, morality, metaphysics.

And, in my view, the bottom line here basically remains the same: that in regard to human interactions revolving around aesthetics, spirituality and doing "the right thing", philosophers have failed in pinning down the objective truth. In other words, when the discussions turn from what they believe is reasonable to what they are able to demonstrate as in fact obligatory for all those who wish to be thought of as rational.

In a No God world, epistemologists, in my opinion, need to spend as much time contemplating things that perhaps we cannot know objectively.

But the point of philosophy in modern times remains the point philosophy has always had: to answer the fundamental questions that lie at the heart of the human condition.

Again, however, the rest is history. Philosophers are as much strewn up and down moral and political and spiritual spectrum, as non-philosophers. With science and the either/or world, each new month brings us at times startling new technologies and new engineering feats and new discoveries.

And the ethicists?

Philosophy plays a crucial role in this regard not just in personal study and exploration, but formally in academia and modern research projects. And, even as time mercilessly advances, it turns out ancient figures whose works have survived over millennia still have some of the most interesting things to say about our human predicament, making their wisdom worth republishing and studying generation after generation.

Still, philosophy encompassed in "general description intellectual contraptions" such as this one tell us what about "wise" and unwise" thoughts, feelings, behaviors? Sure, there are lots and lots and lots of One True Paths out there that are accompanied by various degrees of "or else".

Then what?

[Iwannaplato]

Why Is Philosophy Important Today, and How Can It Improve Your Life?
From clarity to tolerance: here’s your quick guide to why philosophy is important today, as well as how it can improve your life.
By Jack Maden from Philosophy Break

Philosophy is sometimes considered outdated — a perception not helped by the subject’s apparent obsession with reaching back over thousands of years to consider the works of ancient figures like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius.

Sure, I can imagine back when philosophy was first invented [Eastern or Western] enthusiasm ran high. On the other hand, in so many astonishing ways, as science pinned down the objective truth about the either/or world, philosophers were left with pinning down all the rest of it: art, religion, morality, metaphysics.

But, then, no. Philosophy continues to influence, both directly via physics, for example (cosmology, causation, ontology of space/time, qm and more) and then broadly via epistemology. As examples. And affects other fields as well within science. And there's certainly no reason to leave political philosophy out either, or anthropology, psychology, sociology..........

And, in my view, the bottom line here basically remains the same: that in regard to human interactions revolving around aesthetics, spirituality and doing "the right thing", philosophers have failed in pinning down the objective truth.

To me philosophy is generally something that tries to help us challenge assumptions, think better and create ideas. These then move outward and affect other fields.

That said there have been ideas that came out of philosophy that are now generally accepted: embodied cognition and extended minds have both led to fairly widely accepted conclusions and also let to useful research; relations between power and what is consider true; model-based science - philosophy has contributed to consensus that models are not just explanations but tools in the process of learning within science; philosophical externalism and theory of reference are now generally accepted as aspects of language use and cognition: what is happening when we think and use language. Philosophy has influenced via theory practical applications, even opening the door for certain applications: advances in AI, capabilities approach in policy-making, to name a couple. Of course this isn't solving the free will/determinism issue, say, but then, I'm not sure what practical applications we'd get out of that.

But if one reads Iambiguous, it's as if philosophy does nothing because it hasn't solved certain issues, whereas it is in continuous interconnection with many fields, you know, down to earth, affected practical issues and well the very science (along with many other fields) that Iambiguous contrasts with philosophy, as if they were separate.

But the point of philosophy in modern times remains the point philosophy has always had: to answer the fundamental questions that lie at the heart of the human condition.

Again, however, the rest is history. Philosophers are as much strewn up and down moral and political and spiritual spectrum, as non-philosophers. With science and the either/or world, each new month brings us at times startling new technologies and new engineering feats and new discoveries.

Or does it? Perhaps you are just compelled to think this is true?

[iambiguous]

Philosophy is sometimes considered outdated — a perception not helped by the subject’s apparent obsession with reaching back over thousands of years to consider the works of ancient figures like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius.

Sure, I can imagine back when philosophy was first invented [Eastern or Western] enthusiasm ran high. On the other hand, in so many astonishing ways, as science pinned down the objective truth about the either/or world, philosophers were left with pinning down all the rest of it: art, religion, morality, metaphysics.

But, then, no. Philosophy continues to influence, both directly via physics, for example (cosmology, causation, ontology of space/time, qm and more) and then broadly via epistemology. As examples. And affects other fields as well within science. And there's certainly no reason to leave political philosophy out either, or anthropology, psychology, sociology........

Which is why, from my frame of mind, it is all the more important to take discussions among physicists, biologists, philosophers, epistemologists, logicians, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, etc., and ask them to bring their technical, theoretical assessments down out of the academic/didactic clouds and explore the extent to which among them they can provide mere mortals in a No God world with a distinction between rational and irrational behavior. Which, again, for many deontologists also allows them to distinguish moral from immoral behaviors.

Then a further distinction that must be made here between the hard sciences and the soft sciences.

And, in my view, the bottom line here basically remains the same: that in regard to human interactions revolving around aesthetics, spirituality and doing "the right thing", philosophers have failed in pinning down the objective truth.

To me philosophy is generally something that tries to help us challenge assumptions, think better and create ideas. These then move outward and affect other fields.

Okay, but why are doctors who perform abortions as medical procedures not constantly challenging other doctors to perform them more rationally and more ethically? Where's the controversy there? No, only when we switch gears and debate the morality of abortion are you likely to find philosophers and ethicists all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

Really, for the epistemologists among us, what can we either know or not know definitively about the morality of abortion? As opposed to what doctors wholly knowledgeable about human biology can or cannot know about performing abortions.

That said there have been ideas that came out of philosophy that are now generally accepted: embodied cognition and extended minds have both led to fairly widely accepted conclusions and also let to useful research; relations between power and what is consider true; model-based science - philosophy has contributed to consensus that models are not just explanations but tools in the process of learning within science; philosophical externalism and theory of reference are now generally accepted as aspects of language use and cognition: what is happening when we think and use language. Philosophy has influenced via theory practical applications, even opening the door for certain applications: advances in AI, capabilities approach in policy-making, to name a couple. Of course this isn't solving the free will/determinism issue, say, but then, I'm not sure what practical applications we'd get out of that.

Okay, let's bring all of this down out of technical clouds and note how it is applicable in differentiating rational from irrational behavior, moral from immoral behavior. First among the doctors, then among the ethicists.

But if one reads Iambiguous, it's as if philosophy does nothing because it hasn't solved certain issues, whereas it is in continuous interconnection with many fields, you know, down to earth, affected practical issues and well the very science (along with many other fields) that Iambiguous contrasts with philosophy, as if they were separate.

Well, let's just say that I read iambiguous differently. My own interest here revolves around exploring the limitations of philosophy. What [perhaps] can't be grasped/known wholly by the human brain? What human interactions are [perhaps] considerably less able to be pinned down as either logical or illogical.

But only to the extent those here are willing to explore this existentially.

But the point of philosophy in modern times remains the point philosophy has always had: to answer the fundamental questions that lie at the heart of the human condition.

Again, however, the rest is history. Philosophers are as much strewn up and down moral and political and spiritual spectrum, as non-philosophers. With science and the either/or world, each new month brings us at times startling new technologies and new engineering feats and new discoveries.

Or does it? Perhaps you are just compelled to think this is true?

Of course that's always possible.

[Iwannaplato]

Which is why, from my frame of mind, it is all the more important to take discussions among physicists, biologists, philosophers, epistemologists, logicians, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, etc., and ask them to bring their technical, theoretical assessments down out of the academic/didactic clouds and explore the extent to which among them they can provide mere mortals in a No God world with a distinction between rational and irrational behavior. Which, again, for many deontologists also allows them to distinguish moral from immoral behaviors.

So, they do this. All the experts do just what you are saying. Then you respond. But perhaps we are just compelled to think you are making sense.

Then a further distinction that must be made here between the hard sciences and the soft sciences.

Why? to the conclusions of experts in either group you can and seem to be compelled to respond questioning how the brain became autonomous and perhaps their research is compelling simply because it is compelling not because it is true. That conversation stopper works just as well on hard science conclusions and soft science conclusions.

Oh, but they many prove that the brain is autonomous. Nah, you'll just be compelled to think they proved that.

And, in my view, the bottom line here basically remains the same: that in regard to human interactions revolving around aesthetics, spirituality and doing "the right thing", philosophers have failed in pinning down the objective truth.

To me philosophy is generally something that tries to help us challenge assumptions, think better and create ideas. These then move outward and affect other fields.

Okay, but why are doctors who perform abortions as medical procedures not constantly challenging other doctors to perform them more rationally and more ethically? Where's the controversy there? No, only when we switch gears and debate the morality of abortion are you likely to find philosophers and ethicists all up and down the moral and political spectrum.

Really, for the epistemologists among us, what can we either know or not know definitively about the morality of abortion? As opposed to what doctors wholly knowledgeable about human biology can or cannot know about performing abortions.

As you keep arguing in the compatibilism thread there is no difference ANY conclusion, whether moral or technical, soft science or hard science, can be questioned as merely the utterly determined conclusions of whoever buys it.

That said there have been ideas that came out of philosophy that are now generally accepted: embodied cognition and extended minds have both led to fairly widely accepted conclusions and also let to useful research; relations between power and what is consider true; model-based science - philosophy has contributed to consensus that models are not just explanations but tools in the process of learning within science; philosophical externalism and theory of reference are now generally accepted as aspects of language use and cognition: what is happening when we think and use language. Philosophy has influenced via theory practical applications, even opening the door for certain applications: advances in AI, capabilities approach in policy-making, to name a couple. Of course this isn't solving the free will/determinism issue, say, but then, I'm not sure what practical applications we'd get out of that.

Okay, let's bring all of this down out of technical clouds and note how it is applicable in differentiating rational from irrational behavior, moral from immoral behavior. First among the doctors, then among the ethicists.

I was arguing use. We've gotten use out of it, just as we get use out of more hands on fields, and through some of those philosophy found use.

But if one reads Iambiguous, it's as if philosophy does nothing because it hasn't solved certain issues, whereas it is in continuous interconnection with many fields, you know, down to earth, affected practical issues and well the very science (along with many other fields) that Iambiguous contrasts with philosophy, as if they were separate.

Well, let's just say that I read iambiguous differently.

Great, so you do agree that many other fields have been influenced by philosophy and with practical effects. My mistake for misreading you or missing that part of your posts.

Again, however, the rest is history. Philosophers are as much strewn up and down moral and political and spiritual spectrum, as non-philosophers. With science and the either/or world, each new month brings us at times startling new technologies and new engineering feats and new discoveries.

Or does it? Perhaps you are just compelled to think this is true?

Of course that's always possible.

Then why does it matter what the difference is between what you think or are compelled to think are the differences between hard and soft sciences or what you consider not up in the clouds philosophy. When other people assert things in the compatibilism thread you respond with how we don't know how the brain became autonomous and if it isn't then whatever we believe is determined, end of your response.

Yet for some reason you think there is a good reason to engage in philosophy if one does it as you think one should? And you respond with reasoning justifying that. Why not interact with reason to other points and persepectives, rather then using the conversation stopper? Why is it your go to response on some points, but not others, since it applies to all of them and any point raised, even by hard scientists being down to earth.

Even if all rational men and women agree that something is true, perhaps your estimation that their are the rational humans is utterly determined, and perhaps their brains are utterly determined to make them agree?

[iambiguous]

Why Is Philosophy Important Today, and How Can It Improve Your Life?
From clarity to tolerance: here’s your quick guide to why philosophy is important today, as well as how it can improve your life.
By Jack Maden from Philosophy Break

Now, it might be thought that some of the questions philosophy touches on, such as the basic nature of the universe, or the emergence of consciousness, have been superseded by more specialist scientific subjects.

This may well always be tricky. Why? Because science is particularly adept at figuring out how things work and how objectively they seem always to interact with other things in exactly the same ways over and over and over again. Just don't call that cause and effect. Not yet, anyway. But the correlations between matter and energy certainly seem to suggest the possibility that they were created this way -- God or No God -- given the laws of matter and mathematics, The laws of nature.

Instead, the elephant in the room continues to be the part where "somehow" matter became...us. And once matter becomes conscious of itself as matter most will then connect the dots here to God. Or to a Divine universe?

For example, physicists are at the forefront of investigating the fundamental nature of reality. Likewise, neuroscientists are leading the way in unlocking the secrets of the brain. But philosophy is not here to compete with these brilliant, fascinating research projects, but to supplement, clarify, and even unify them.

Same thing? Yes, neuroscientists are unlocking the scerets of the universe, but they can only attempt to accomplish this given the mystery of mind itself`. And until The Gap is closed considerably more, philosophers will be the ones going to the hard guys and gals for the facts and the knowledge that might enable them to concoct a TOE. But that still leaves those like me arguing that in a No God world there is that crucial existential gap between theory and practice.

In fact, how many scientists are there that spend the bulk of their time pinning down whether things like gravity and electromagnetism have an underlying meaning and purpose? Maybe one day they will attempt to reconfigure "gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force" into more useful people friendly components of...reality?

But that still leaves those like me focusing in on the differences between human interactions in the either/or or the is/ought world.

But philosophy is not here to compete with these brilliant, fascinating research projects, but to supplement, clarify, and even unify them.

Okay, but to the extent that philosophers supplement, clarify and unify their own teleological projects in "research" that revolves largely around worlds of words, their conclusions continue to remain far, far more profoundly problematic.

[Gary Childress]

Why Is Philosophy Important Today, and How Can It Improve Your Life?

I think philosophy just is. It's not necessarily something that improves your life all the time in all cases. It's something you encounter and once you encounter it, you are stuck to it. It's not a bad thing. It's better than being ignorant and easily swept up by some things that seem to easily sweep up others. I guess.

[iambiguous]

Why Is Philosophy Important Today, and How Can It Improve Your Life?
From clarity to tolerance: here’s your quick guide to why philosophy is important today, as well as how it can improve your life.
By Jack Maden from Philosophy Break

...when physicists share their latest mathematical models that predict the behavior of matter, philosophers ask, “okay, so what does this behavior tell us about the intrinsic nature of matter itself? What is matter? Is it physical, is it a manifestation of consciousness? — and why does any of this stuff exist in the first place?”

I suppose that, when push comes to shove here, what counts is the extent to which both philosophers and scientists come to recognize that they may well need each other to ferret out that which some call "final objective resolution"? Unless, perhaps, scientists become so overwhelmingly preoccupied with discovering "how" matter and energy function together, they simply give philosophers the benefit of the doubt regarding the "why"? part.

Well, unless, of course, Christians shock both of them by introducing the world [once again] to Jesus Christ.

Equally, when neuroscientists make progress in mapping the brain, philosophers are on hand to digest the consequences the latest research has for our conceptions of consciousness and free will.

Unless, perhaps, by now, you know what's coming...that both scientists and philosophers are compelled -- destined? fated? -- by their brains either to make progress here or not to make progress. And, thus, making either progress or the lack thereof interchangeable in regard to actually holding them responsible.

And, just as pertinently, while computer scientists continue to advance the sophistication of AI, philosophers discuss the implications an ever-growing machine intelligence has for society, and dissect the urgent ethical and moral concerns accompanying them.

Try this...

See if you can convince yourself that we are to nature what AI entities are to us. Has or has not Deep Blue acquired the same sort of complex mental, emotional and psychological reactions we have when playing -- winning and losing -- chess matches? Or are our reactions just the latest rendition of the "psychological illusion of free will" inherently built right into "I" from the cradle to the grave.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy is a Waste of Time
Kevin Steves
Pittston Education Chronicle

Philosophy is a waste of time. Worse then that, the study of philosophy, when taken seriously, impedes scientific progress, undermines moral conviction and erodes the very sense of patriotism and loyalty necessary for a thriving democratic republic such as ours.

Next up: the philosophy of patriotism?

First, define it? Then regardless of historical and cultural context, assure others that only your own definition -- your own understanding of what it means to be patriotic-- is essential as the point of departure in any and all serious discussions of it.

There was a time, when philosophy was so wedded to common sense, religious morality and civic duty that it acted as a corrective to fanatical excesses and thoughtless irrational commitments.

Patriotism and...common sense? religion? civic duty? On the other hand, your definition and understanding of these things or another's?

"America...love it or leave it", "my country right or wrong", "the fatherland", "the motherland", "united we stand, divide we fall", "give me liberty or give me death".

Okay, but pertaining to what set of circumstances? And, of course, the extent to which one's understanding of patriotism is embedded in one or another theology or ideology or school of philosophy.

As for being a corrective "to fanatical excesses and thoughtless irrational commitments", note some historical examples of this. Sooner or later, in my view, given any historical context, it's going to come down to which side's assessment of fanatical excesses prevails and which sides political prowess allows them to enforce their own dogmas.

Here the therapeutic value of philosophy could be seen in that it encouraged thoughtful, careful dialogue with an eye to solving real practical problems facing the community and advancing collective human wisdom.

Indeed, look how therapeutic philosophy has become here! All of the dialogues being articulated and exchanged such that even though we may not come to an "across-the-board, all-embracing, all-encompassing, all-inclusive, blanket, broad, encompassing, extensive, panoptic, sweeping" understanding of patriotism, we can at least agree on the technical aspects of it.

After all, it's not for nothing that because of this, the world around us is getting closer and closer and closer to the best of all patriotisms possible.

Theoretically, say.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy is a Waste of Time
Kevin Steves
Pittston Education Chronicle

Here is my point in essence. First, not unlike the present state of the art world (where modern works serve, not merely to expand our notion of “what is art” but rather to destroy any fixed notion of “art”) so too modern philosophy seeks not so much to guide us to ever more adequate understanding of the world and our place in it nor even to the successful resolution of our social (ethical, political, epistemological, etc.) problems.

Okay, art and philosophy. As I noted recently in an e-mail to my daughter...

"Unfortunately, I have never been able to really understand or appreciate philosophy or art unless it depicts the world around me 'existentially'. There are many, many philosophers, however, who prefer 'technical' exchanges instead -- analytic philosophers going back and forth with their dueling definitions and deductions. I'm always trying to bring their theoretical constructs 'out into the world of actual human interactions'. Especially those pertaining to morality, teleology and [of course] The Big Questions."

On the other hand, most people are likely to agree that with art [especially modern art] our reactions are often entirely subjective. In fact, that's the whole point for some artists. With philosophy, however, it is more often assumed that the words used to create an argument do reflect the world around us objectively. Thus, from my frame of mind, when particular philosophers maintain that their own words embedded in technical or theoretical accounts are able to encompass the is/ought world objectively, I object.

Or insist, "given what context?"

Rather philosophy seems only so seek to confuse and bewilder and frustrate any and all such attempts. “Truth” in any objective sense has been relegated to a quaint antique (or perhaps a devious political manipulation) in much the same way that objectivity in beauty or aesthetic merit is seen as the product of nefarious social construction.

See what I mean? Here is an attempt to portray philosophy [in a world of words] as a useful and still relevant discipline. As though philosophers could actually all agree on what those words mean objectively...given a particular set of circumstances. Or, instead, avoid that altogether and almost never come down out of the clouds of abstractions.

Philosophical questioning is no longer seen to serve any human interest other than to build a personal reputation as a “scholar” and fill a tenure folder.

Another rendition of Will Durant's "epistemologists"? Although to the extent that is still the case today in academia...? You tell me.

An assessment such as this...

No doubt, some attack and deride all sources of truth and value because they genuinely believe all to be equally illegitimate, (They seem oblivious to the internal inconsistency of that position.) but others have no “greater good” in mind than advancing their own careers. As a result, when taken seriously, (and I believe that is happening with less and less frequency) academic philosophy serves only to loosen our collective grasp on inquiry (as Susan Hacke has put it) and the very “wisdom” it is purported to seek.

...is no less just another, well, academic account.

But then the part where, okay, academic philosophy shifts gear and reflects a more Continental approach to human interactions. Well, that's when I interject again with my own "fractured and fragmented" "rooted existentially in dasein" "here and now" moral philosophy.

[iambiguous]

Philosophy is a Waste of Time
Kevin Steves
Pittston Education Chronicle

We are made to doubt not the truth of our particular theories, but our capacity to know what “truth” means. We are made to doubt not the propriety of our current moral convictions, but the possibility of moral reasoning. We are made to doubt not the particular conceptions of beauty and art which currently enjoy popular appeal, but to believe that “beauty” and “ugliness” name only private sensations while at the same time that merely private sensations cannot be named.

Now all we need is for the APA to announce a challenge:

1] to come up with the most rational theoretical assessment of human morality
2] to bring that assessment "down to Earth" in order to challenge those [like me] to recognize that there is in fact an objective morality

Moral reasoning is one thing. In fact for all practical purposes it happens all the time in those nations that practice democracy and the rule of law. After all, there are many "sides" embraced in regard to many moral conflagrations and the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. It just comes down to whether might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise prevails.

The social consequences should be clear to even a causal observer: Moral Subjectivism and Nihilism. (After all, the wise philosophers have taught us that there are no objective moral truths.)

Perhaps, but it's not like I haven't suggested over and again that, regarding those who do believe in moral absolutes, they take their theoretical constructs over to the Applied Ethics board.

Apathy in the face of moral atrocities (After all the wise philosophers have taught us that no morality is superior to any other and that ultimately, all struggle, even against injustice, is meaningless.).

Bottom line: it's still too close to call regarding whether FFOs or moral nihilists sustain the most human pain and suffering around the globe.

[debar]

Can recommend reading "what is philosophy" by Ortega y Gasset. He talks about the activity of philosophy/ philosophising. And he has some similar observations wrt the state of philosophy about 100 years earlier than Lawrence Yeo.

[iambiguous]

Why is philosophy still relevant to our society nowadays?
Michel Paul from Quora

Philosophy is relevant today for the same reasons that art is.
Is art ‘relevant’?
Of course it is.

Calling something relevant here is, in my view, no less rooted existentially in dasein. On the other hand, it would seem that philosophy actually would be more relevant. Why? Because it revolves in large part around logic and epistemology. Logic pertaining to words we choose to put in a particular order such that something is deemed to be more or less reasonable. The rules of language. Epistemology focusing in on what it is exactly that can be known or not known by the human brain. Given free will, of course. Otherwise, philosophers and artists are inherently interchangeable with all the rest of us. Doing what we do because we are never able not to.

On the other hand,

"What is the difference between logic and reasoning?

It can be likened to solving a puzzle, as it involves piecing together information, observations, and experiences to make an inference or draw a conclusion. While logic is an external framework of predetermined rules, reasoning is an internal process that can be influenced by knowledge and beliefs." Kialo Edu Blog

Now all we need do is to examine a few contexts in order to substantiate our own set of assumptions here.

Philosophy has always been relevant, and will continue to be relevant, for any society liberated enough for philosophers to exist without fear of physical harm.

Philosophers and..."or else"? The irony here being that, in regard to particular schools of philosophy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy -- they themselves insist on dividing up the world between one of us and one of them.

Philosophy is the critique of foundational beliefs, and the critique of foundational beliefs can be dangerous. Only some cultures have been able to tolerate that...It almost warrants the question as to whether or not they are actually philosophers?

Or, from my own vantage point, a critique of foundational beliefs in and of itself can stir up any number of conflicts. And these conflicts become all the more prevalent and prolonged when the foundations are armed to the teeth. And have God on their side.

This can result in rather surreal contexts, such as the ones unfolding now in Gaza and Lebanon. All parties here claim to have God on their side. But it's the same God!

As for who the real philosophers are, even here we have these endless squabbles regarding who truly understands what this or that Great Mind expounded. And then the part where we explore their conclusions in and out of the academic clouds.

Philosophy is often criticized for not having ‘solved’ its problems. Funny thing is, science also has not solved many of those very same problems. Examples - what is consciousness? What is time? Nobody yet has answers to those questions.

And here in what some construe to be the "either/or" world, actual objective answers are within reach. Science, after all, using the "scientific method" is coming up with new and astounding discoveries every year. In fact, every week it sometimes seems. Where is the equivalent of that among philosophers when using the "philosophical method"?