That 'homeopathic' idea always has its charms. Isn't this part of romanticism in general? That civilization corrupts some kind of natural virtue? I think there is some truth in it, but of course the other side has its claims too.

Shaw is really quite the fusion of contradictions. I learned quite a bit from his prefaces and plays. He really is just a delight to read. 'Back to Methuselah ' starts in some rethought Garden of Eden and jumps into the future when humans become dematerialized vortices. He wanted to give humanity a religion of creative evolution. In some ways he was Nietzsche with more discipline, less irony. I'm not saying he's better than Nietzsche. To lose the irony is to lose the essence, one might say.

Yes? No? — Bitter Crank

Yes.

I don't see professional philosophers being of much help here, because science did bud off quite a while back (several hundred years) and has since developed it's own body of knowledge which, on average, a philosopher-specialist probably doesn't have time to gain in one lifetime. — Bitter Crank

Not professional philosophers but professional courtesy to philosophy.
Just like the average person is willing to accept scientific values, so also professionals need to accept philosophical values.

I haven't read Shaw but I think I will like him more than Nietzsche. I have often thought that Nietzsche's irony was too much and a subtle way to mask his irresolution.

I think there is some truth in it, but of course the other side has its claims too. — sign

Unfortunately, we don't get to have a panacea for all of life's ills. I believe one answer gets us to one step, then it's back to the drawing board for another answer. It's a tireless process and we are exhausted beings.

I haven't read Shaw but I think I will like him more than Nietzsche. I have often thought that Nietzsche's irony was too much and a subtle way to mask his irresolution. — BrianW

I respect that. I'd say, though, that we have a plurality of Nietzsches (who loved to talk about masks). In some modes he was a mystic. In others the supreme critic of any kind of fixity.

Unfortunately, we don't get to have a panacea for all of life's ills. I believe one answer gets us to one step, then it's back to the drawing board for another answer. It's a tireless process and we are exhausted beings. — BrianW

That sounds about right.

I have always seen Philosophy as somewhat similar to math we haven't found a use for yet. It exists for the time being as useless but becomes important when we finally find a use for it. Philosophy is a study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe, (at least from my perspective) and Science is a study of the universe using our own minds. — TogetherTurtle

Before the term science was coined, philosophy encompassed the "study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe" as well as the "study of the universe using our own minds". The diversification that happened later resulting in science as a separate subject is specialisation, just a normal part of the progression of the fields of knowledge.

If we make art to explain ourselves and do Science to explain our universe, Philosophy is that missing link where we ask questions about ourselves to find out why we explain things. — TogetherTurtle

I think we make art to observe ourselves externally or from a less personal perspective, and participate in science in order to perceive ourselves as interacting in the part of the universe which we readily perceive. The art and science are both questions and attempts at answering them. I believe philosophy is both the questions and the answers, and the confusion in between.

Philosophy may not result in beautiful pieces of art or life-improving appliances, — TogetherTurtle

I think philosophy is what generates that beatitude which artists seek in beauty, which science seeks in knowledge, which the average person seeks in comfort and a sense of belonging, etc.
Those who would dig into the past will find that inventions and creations were just as much inspiring parts of our lives back when philosophy was the predominant field of study. And I'm not asking that it should retain its eminence, but that we should not forget its significance because there's much to be extracted from it yet.

So it would seem that the sciences will have to import big-picture capacity from philosophy to make overall sense of what they are all up to. (And they should, because they are messing around with very basic, root-level stuff, as well as very high level phenomena.) How should they go about that? — Bitter Crank

Very slowly, I think. There's no necessity to invent or create anything within the next decade or even century. For those who have seemingly peaceful lives, I doubt they would attribute that to any of the human inventions or creations. I think we need to work on our ethics with as much vigour as we have applied in science. I believe the Buddha was more right on this one, we need to develop our 'dharma' first before we can hope to save the world.

Before the term science was coined, philosophy encompassed the "study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe" as well as the "study of the universe using our own minds". The diversification that happened later resulting in science as a separate subject is specialisation, just a normal part of the progression of the fields of knowledge. — BrianW

Sometimes I find it hard to decide where Philosophy ends and Science begins. I suppose that's why.

I think we make art to observe ourselves externally or from a less personal perspective, and participate in science in order to perceive ourselves as interacting in the part of the universe which we readily perceive. The art and science are both questions and attempts at answering them. I believe philosophy is both the questions and the answers, and the confusion in between. — BrianW

I like the idea of Art and Science being two pawns and Philosophy being the board, but I think that it may be a little less fundamental. Most of the time, any field of study is trying to piece together what happened in the past by taking what they know and theory crafting. (at least that's how I interpret it) So from that perspective, Science would be a piece on the board that questions what the board is made of, Math would be a piece that studies the relationships between the squares on the board, Art would be a piece that questions why it likes the board and thinks it's beautiful, and Philosophy would be a piece that asks why the board exists. Of course, I don't study all of those things, so I may be wrong about what they ask.

I think philosophy is what generates that beatitude which artists seek in beauty, which science seeks in knowledge, which the average person seeks in comfort and a sense of belonging, etc.
Those who would dig into the past will find that inventions and creations were just as much inspiring parts of our lives back when philosophy was the predominant field of study. And I'm not asking that it should retain its eminence, but that we should not forget its significance because there's much to be extracted from it yet. — BrianW

I don't think that philosophy generates it per se, more like explores and questions it. Before I knew about gravity, I didn't fly off the globe, but after I learned about it I found it beautiful and sought out more information. A philosopher, in that case, would wonder why I sought more information. I don't think anyone denies that things were invented in the past, and those were sometimes due to philosophers questioning, but Science seems to deliver us more inventions faster. I agree that we shouldn't forget Philosophy, however, just as much as we shouldn't forget Science when something that gives us more magic comes along.

I like your perspectives. I like talking here because people can point out flaws or interesting alternate points and not be angry about it.

Just like the average person is willing to accept scientific values, so also professionals need to accept philosophical values. — BrianW

For what it's worth, I think politics is the effective manifestation of philosophy in the world. I don't mean 'effective' as in good or bad. I just mean that arguments about value are played out for most people in political discourse. Arguments about bathrooms, taxes, wars, education, etc. are arguments about who we should be as a community at a less abstract level. Some voters are indeed informed by philosophy proper, but most people think in more concrete terms, issue by issue. If prodded, you can probably get them to sketch something like a metaphysics. But doing so hasn't become a personal project for them. Indeed, some people are wary of an approach that is too abstract, too unworldly in its love of grand theories.

I would like to point out that it's really difficult to define what philosophy is and that what one person might think of as philosophy is different than what another person thinks of as philosophy. For me, philosophy is the art of categorizing. Under this broad definition of philosophy, just about every field of study relies on philosophy on some level.

Psychology: every contentious psychological debate about mental illnesses and human nature are philosophical in nature. That is because the goal is to draw boundaries between a mentally healthy and a mentally ill person, for example. Or it is to construct a theory about a certain aspect of human nature. Most psychological theories are unsupported enough that they seem more like philosophical theories rather than scientific theories.

Economics: All major economic theories are philosophical theories rather scientific theories by nature. This is why there's no good consensus among economists about what the best economic policies are.

History: History can be better defined as the study of change rather than just the study of the past. In order to study the future, we have to predict it by studying historical patterns. I would call that philosophizing.

Physics: I think we won't be able to fully understand physics without thinking about metaphysical questions. For example, I think understanding human consciousness is necessary in understanding the mechanics of the physical world.

Music: Music critique is a form of philosophy, in my opinion.

Law: What constitutes reasonable doubt that someone commited a crime is an interesting epistemological question to ask. It is certainly a relevant question to ask in our society.

Computer Science: Computer languages implement many advances made in the philosophy of logic.

In conclusion, pretty much all of human knowledge relies on philosophizing on some level.