To piggyback on what others have said: philosophy (mostly) consists in reasoning to better, or more probitive, questions; when answers to such questions are decidable, even in principle, by cumulative data (evidence), they can be treated as problems to be solved aka "sciences" (as Banno points out); until then, at the mercy of undecidable answers, philosophy proposes ways of 'cultivating well-being' in spite of lacking decidable answers aka "uncertainty" (as Foolos4 points out). And so philosophy "progresses" only in so far as philosophers discover / invent new questions and refine less probitive questions into more probitive questions. IMO 'reducing misuses/abuses of ignorance' (speculatively and/or dialectically and/or methodologically) is the philosopher's Sisyphusean stone. — 180 Proof

:clap: Superb Monsieur 180 Proof.

If you have the time, you might find this video somewhat intriguing. It speaks to the relationships between the two...

That.

And the remaining problems are quite difficult.

To piggyback on what others have said: philosophy (mostly) consists in reasoning to better, or more probitive, questions — 180 Proof

Yep! Much of practicing good philosophy (and science for that matter) is about knowing the right questions to ask.

Those of us who dabble in it, often find that once the questions are asked, it leads to yet other questions that ironically enough, in some way shape or form, get answered.

Questions about how we ought to live, on a personal, social, political, and geo-political level. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but you gave an insufficient answer. The task is not what the questions are; but how those questions elicit us to act in the absence of an answer. You have a very strong sense and incredibly strong command of ignoring my points when you are cornered.

Let me give you a simple, but perfect example why your answer here failed by being insufficient.

Son: "Daddy, should I wear the purple shoes, or the black shoes to school today?"
Daddy: he does not answer.
Son: he will wear the black or the purple shoes, but not because dad gave some guidance.

Humanity asks philosophy via asking philosophers: "Is there a god?"
Philosophers: Don't tell humanity, and admit they don't know the answer.
Humanity: will believe in god, or not, but NOT because philosophers gave them an answer as guidance.

Of course you will say humanity is many people, and this and that, and will completely ignore the thrust of my example. Be my guest, that will be the end of this part of the discussion.

I am saying that it is not possible to guide human behaviour by not answering questions, whereas you said in your quasi-definition, that that is part of philosophy.

I'm yet to read of a single one, rather tragic really. Plato outlined the most important problems in philosophy around 2500 years ago, and we are yet to solve one, we haven't even made progress.
Is progress in this domain even possible? If not, why not? And if not, why bother? — forrest-sounds

You are definitely on the right track. The so-called "problems" in philosophy are not problems at all, instead, they are misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

Since the human mind is incapable of accessing reality in any substantive way, people make-up all kinds of non-sense that changes, changes, changes with the winds that blow in every direction.

Sorry, but you gave an insufficient answer. The task is not what the questions are; but how those questions elicit us to act in the absence of an answer. You have a very strong sense and incredibly strong command of ignoring my points when you are cornered. — god must be atheist

I do not think that I am cornered. Is that what you intend? To corner me?

We are in the process of packing up and moving back to our summer residence. I simply did not read your question carefully enough. I was thinking about what the questions are.

My first answer to your question is, I can't tell you how to live. For me it begins with working on myself, on who I am and want to be. What I do follows. To live the examined life, that is, to reflect on what I do and say and alter my behavior and attitude when upon reflection I think I have done wrong. To act with patience, humility, and caution, knowing that whatever I do things may not work out as intended or that what is intended may not have been the best choice. To try to see things from different perspectives.

Some examples:
Physics, psychology, linguistics, mathematics, logic, chemistry, biology... — Banno

Except that the op could just as well have been ‘Can someone name a single solved scientific problem?’.
Converting natural philosophy into physics didnt ‘solve’ anything. It just changed the language and methods.
I’m not sure what ‘solved’ is supposed to mean with regard to empirical paradigms unless
one believes that there is a way things ‘really are’ and we’re just mirroring nature with our theories. Science offers practical ways of interacting with the world in relation to our goals.

Since the human mind is incapable of accessing reality in any substantive way, people make-up all kinds of non-sense that changes, changes, changes with the winds that blow in every direction. — synthesis

You just gave a good description of science, which claims to ‘solve’ a problem and then refashions itself over and over to ‘solve’ again. Except the so-called progress of science is less about solving a previous problem than of asking a different question.

At one time someone asked another: "If we lead a man to knowledge can we make him think?" Philosophy proved that you can't fix stupid. And it proves that on a daily, minutely basis.

I'm a bit more optimistic than others. I think many philosophical problems have been solved, or at least progress has been made. It's just there is no widespread agreement about what.

For example, the problem of the place of consciousness in nature has been solved. Panpsychism is the correct answer, although questions remain. Or maybe I'm wrong, and functionalism is true. Either way, the problem has been solved.

And I think there is one modern problem that has been solved actually, substance dualism, the view that Descartes argued for. Though when he made it, he had good reasons to do so.

Very few people today would say they are a substance dualist. Although property dualism is a different problem...

there is one modern problem that has been solved actually, substance dualism, the view that Descartes argued for. — Manuel

The understanding of philosophy or science that believes that either of them are in the business of ‘solving ‘ problems’ is a problem for me.
Solution implies for me the idea of thought as the mirror of nature. To me nature isn’t a static ‘out there’, it is a becoming that our inquiries contribute to. We don’t mirror the world, we produce worlds. I think the purpose of knowledge is to clear the ground for the asking of more interesting questions.

Oh sure. I'm perfectly fine with that. I think we only approximate too.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say we are no longer led in mistaken paths as to what one tentative answer could look like. By abandoning contact mechanics or substance dualism, we are less mistaken.

So in this case "solved" would imply something like "no longer a pressing problem down this path of inquiry", but this should not be taken as meaning that all problems are eliminated.

They never are. They are either modified, put aside or discarded.

‘Can someone name a single solved scientific problem?’. — Joshs

...he typed on his laptop...

‘Can someone name a single solved scientific problem?’.
— Joshs

...he typed on his laptop... — Banno

which used to be a typewriter , and before that pen and paper , and before that a feather quill , and before
that a stone tablet. Did each invention solve the same
problem or create a new problem to solve? Wasn’t it Steve Jobs who said he made products that people didn’t even realize they needed?

Just pointing to the progression... that'll do me.

I don't know that any of the questions concerning the natural world (the domain of science) were ever philosophical in nature. — forrest-sounds

Science is natural philosophy, and used to be called as such, right through the 19th century.

The conception of nature as res extensa, as matter, or as the "physical" (as in the science of physics, a word derived from the Greek phusis, which is also often translated as "nature" [natura, in Latin]), comes from the beginning of what we call modern science, in Galileo and Descartes. Of course, their idea of "body" (and hence material) was based in the mechanical philosophy of the time: the idea of contact action. That is, that the world was like a machine, not unlike the complicated clocks and automata of the 17th century. Eventually this was abandoned, of course, for a view that takes into account the "forces" of nature -- but you see the point, I think.

But the very ontology behind science is a naturalistic one -- basically materialism or, perhaps better, mathematical and measurable. "Reality is only what is measurable," as supposedly Max Plank once said. This ontology is not itself scientific.

Just pointing to the progression... that'll do me. — Banno

If it truly is a linear progression then, yes, it makes sense to describe science as in the ‘solving’ business. But as far as I can see , with a linear causal
model of progress you end up with what you started with Kind of like ‘solving’ physics with a unified model of everything and thereby predicting all future events
on your computer. It solves everything and nothing at the same time. I do like a concept of prediction that jettisons the linear causal baggage though.

It's a description of all things.

I do not think that I am cornered. Is that what you intend? To corner me? — Fooloso4

Look: there are tons of thinkers in my life who are not like your calibre. I can take from a number of my friends, debating partners and acquaintances, that they genuinely misunderstand me or not understand me. From you, I don't think I should accept that. No, I don't want miracles from you, but you are more intelligent and more learned than I am, and therefore I sense (not know, but sense and I believe my gut feelings in those instances) that you are trying to slide out of giving me a straight answer, and you instead waffle or talk about irrelevant things.

Being a person I can look up to has its responsibilities as well as its privileges.

Not all progress is linear.

And see Causality, Determination and such stuff.

:up:

But also on the other hand ...

At one time someone asked another: "If we lead a man to knowledge can we make him think?" Philosophy proved that you can't fix stupid. And it proves that on a daily, minutely basis. — James Riley

:clap: :100: :sweat:

Okay so, I don't take science to be a part of philosophy. I don't much care if a good deal of philosophising was done on what are presently scientific questions, and I don't care that many a philosopher was also a scientist.

Philosophy is generally theoretical, and I think its main branches are metaphysics, logic, epistemology, axiology and aesthetics. Problems which exist within these domains can justly (as far as I am concerned) be considered philosophical. Problems which are of the form 'How does 'x' occur' and 'Why does 'x' occur' where x is any natural phenomena are scientific. If you don't agree with this schema that's okay, but can you answer the original question with the assumption that it's correct.

PM sent.

Plato outlined the most important problems in philosophy around 2500 years ago — forrest-sounds

It is generally understood that only a portion of Plato's philosophical work was committed to writing. Many of his most important ideas were communicated verbally to those close to him. Who's to say that the dilemmas and conundrums that he spoke of weren't reconciled by them? In the Apology, when Socrates drinks hemlock and dies without complaint or bitterness, who's to say that his ability to maintain equanimity in the face of death doesn't represent a solution to the problem of existential anxiety?

Didn't Xeno's Paradox get solved?

It’s very easy to see the solution, but very difficult to convince others of it. Proof is supposed to do that. The problem is, in philosophy it doesn’t. In philosophy, we need to gradually iterate towards a general consensus through both thought and intuition—in this way Peirce was right.

Philosophical problems are to be collectively negotiated—that’s how we reach a collectively intuitive solution.

Didn't Xeno's Paradox get solved? — RogueAI

Yes, Xeno's paradox has been solved for two distinct interpretations.