Of course a naive example. But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

It could help clarify questions and avoid errors in judgment. But I believe that involves variety of experience. I don't believe one can achieve good judgment by academics alone. Perhaps the academies in ancient times actually involved wise sages than helped create other sages. Now a days I think its more dogma passed down from one generation to the other, with the title 'expert' granted even to call someone a philosophical expert who is not a sage is a misnomer, unless by 'expert' we just mean someone highly knowledgeable.

Not much different from how religious authorities pass on their authority.

Though I may being exaggerating and overly critical

Probably not that much as academic philosophers. What they could do is join in efforts to solve / prevent / stop / reduce... urgent global matters.

Presumably professional professors can think clearly. Clear thinking is needed. For instance, there are no effective individual solutions to global warming. The changes that are critical (whether they are implemented or not) are at the corporate / regional / national level. Haranguing people to recycle shopping bags and water bottles is a waste of time. The critical step is to stop producing one-use plastic--something corporations have to change.

People can consume less -- especially in industrialized developed countries. Use less, buy less. But it still requires large scale corporate action.

But more stringently, can philosophy ”as such” help in big matters? In that case, how? — Ansiktsburk

Yes -- through a literary movement, a strong one. Pen is mightier than a sword type of battle. Yes, I am aware that this was the norm in the past -- gather, write, publish manifestos to voice opinions on political/economic matters. But forms of persuasion don't change. Announce a symposium.

I understand you want to emphasize urgency. Think of the precipice. Steady and firm, but not go crazy over an ideology, or you would just be part of the populace reacting, no longer the wise philosopher who could move mountains.

As an addendum to this post -- invite the obscure rock stars of philosophy -- the retired, secluded, and the silent ones who'd written great treatises and polemics in the past, let them bring back those forgotten writings.

Depends on what philosophy you have in mind. If it is limited to academic philosophy on mind or linguistics, then almost nothing carries over to urgency.

If you include ethical matters, as well as "big picture" thinking, then it is urgent. How, concretely? We can ask is it OK to destroy vast swaths of life just because we want to continue "growing" the economy? We all know infinite growth is not possible.

Maybe we can ask, what does it say about the only known self-reflective creature in the universe, that it is willing to, consciously, destroy the prospects of life in the very near future? Maybe self reflective creatures are not a good thing for nature, even if "she" doesn't care.

There's also plenty of work to do when it comes to clarifying word use ("freedom", "choice", "family values", "inclusivity", "community", etc., etc., etc.). Virtually every political speech you here is ripe for philosophy of language.

And on and on and on.

It's only that, all these things aren't limited to philosophers by any means.

Of course a naive example. But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

Very little. Maybe pick up a shovel, or in extremis, circumstances requiring, a gun. Philosophers and poets those who see ahead, as a sailor who "sees" the weather over the horizon. But when the storm comes, better to be just a plain sailor of the moment.

"You are a counsellor; if you can command these elements to
silence, and work the peace of the present, we will
not hand a rope more; use your authority: if you
cannot, give thanks you have lived so long, and make
yourself ready in your cabin for the mischance of
the hour, if it so hap. The Tempest, I, i.

Fair point. At the same time, if that sailor who "sees ahead" spots a storm, he can warn/instruct the other members of the crew to reduce the sails and batten down hatches before the storm hits.

Of course a naive example. But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

Answer them, that's what it could do. And answer them sooner than later, seeing that the questions are urgent.

For instance: Global warning. First, you have to put it in a question form, to enable philosophy to answer it. So: how can we stop global warming? Philosophy may answer, "create a plan and follow it which will make global warming go away."

But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

Suck up to the capitalists or otherwise play to their advantage, as usual.

But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

Teach us and future generations how to think through "real life urgent questions" honestly and rationally.

They answer them in boring ways, but maybe good ones

Probably a good starting place would be to agree on what are those urgent issues that need to be solved.

I would say that the main problem is modern society losing its fundamental concepts. For the last ~1700 years societies were orientated around Christian ideas, which now are certainly outdated. So people turn to all sort of hedonism, marxism, climate alarmism in an attempt find a world view that would hold their societies together.

As for what you mentioned - refugees and climate change - I don't think those are real problems, more like temporary fabs that would be soon forgotten.

For instance: Global warning. First, you have to put it in a question form, to enable philosophy to answer it. So: how can we stop global warming? Philosophy may answer, "create a plan and follow it which will make global warming go away." — god must be atheist

That should do it.

It should do nothing, be it can do a lot.

Meaning that activism is activism and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy should first and foremost be about expressing, exchanging and picking apart different ideas and approaches with rigour in order to expose new questions or rank the use of question/s at hand.

Of course these things can impact and have impacted how society functions. Like with mathematics or science I don’t see it as a way of determining how we ‘should’ live but more about how we ‘can’ live. Like with mathematics and science simple curiosity often comes before any view to use gained knowledge, but generally can lead to being of more practical use for future generations.

Even when it comes to ethics I don’t follow the idea that we should or shouldn’t live a certain way as a human being - such is too much of an individual item than as a means of setting out an overarching scheme to suit all.