Philosophy is the study of nothing, and everything inside of that "nothing".

That's pretty close to the mark in my opinion.

One point to note: the word 'scientist' came into vogue in the salon of Charles Babbage, who (along with Ada Lovelace) is credited with being the forefather of the computer. He was a public intellectual in London, in the 1830's, and other gentlemen of learning would gather at his place. It was in this milieu that the notion of 'the scientist' as distinct from a philosopher began to form. (This is according to Walter Isaacson in his book The Innovators.)

However, another point I will make, is that the difference between science and philosophy is often not very well understood - because it's not a scientific question!

In other words, the kinds of questions that philosophy is interested in, are not really the kinds of questions that science considers. But due to the social prestige of science, this means a great many people, even very well-educated people, will dismiss philosophy as not being 'informed by science!' There was an OP published by Stephen Hawkings along these lines a few years back, which motivated a robust rebuttal by philosopher John Haldane, called Philosophy Lives. (I should also note, there are also at least some scientists around who are philosophically astute, so it is by no means a blanket statement. But they are the exception rather than the rule.)

In many (most?) cases, philosophy is born from a certain desperation. Wittgenstein seemed to be aware of this, but so was Heidegger, and Descartes' was anxious enough that he formulated an entire philosophy in order to combat this.

Philosophy is not a discipline. It is an activity that is basically between poetry and science. Making it into a discipline loses the original essence that drives philosophical inquiry. It's laughable, and a little pathetic too, to see philosophers scramble to justify their "discipline" by trying to make it a scientific-like discipline.

In my opinion, if a question or problem is anxiety or curiosity-inducing (both a form of desperation), then it's probably philosophical. Science is actually really boring for the most part. Nothing too exciting comes from it, in general.

Science is actually really boring for the most part. Nothing too exciting comes from it, in general. — darthbarracuda

X-)

I should add, on a more serious note, philosophy really is a subject, a discipline, and a tradition, originating with the Greeks, and carried on as a continuous tradition of enquiry until modern times. Even though it has taken so many diverse forms, and considered such a wide range of questions, it still is a subject, discipline and tradition, which has its own curriculum and scope.

Sure, science has done a lot of nice things. But it's still pretty boring.

Have you considered the arguments for and against scientific realism vs instrumentalism?

Philosophy as an endeavor has always been an aspect of the human psyche to understand, whether it be the nature of the seasons or the nature of nature. The word itself can be translated as "love of wisdom" and since we live in the West, there are Western academia biases as to what is wisdom. Be that as it may, one who is involved with the endeavor might still wish to source knowledge outside of academic textbooks since there is much interesting thoughts that can be found in such an exploration.

That was an interesting article. So realists give value to scientific theories according to their level of truth; and instrumentalists give them value according to their practical use. As philosophers, should we side with truth or usefulness?

I think we need to differentiate between two kinds of truths: (1) eternal / rational / necessary, and (2) temporal / empirical / contingent. Examples of (1) are logic, ethics, essence of things, and values of beings. Examples of (2) are matters of fact, accidental properties of things, and laws of physics.

Since eternal > temporal, rational > empirical, and necessary > contingent, it follows that type (1) truths > type (2) truths. My bottom line is that we ought to value truth for its own end for (1), and truth as a means to another end for (2).

Science (modern definition) was not created by science, but by philosophy; and more precisely, by logic and epistemology. As such, if science is a discipline, then philosophy must be a discipline too. You don't get order out of chaos.

I too find scientific truths pretty boring, if not for their usefulness.

The word itself can be translated as "love of wisdom" and since we live in the West, there are Western academia biases as to what is wisdom. — Rich

My take is that the essence of 'wisdom' is: correct judgement. And a judgement may only be correct if the facts and values are true, which brings it back to the search for truth. Though I admit it's a bit of a stretch... I am not sure if wisdom is an essential property of philosophy, but it is a nice effect of it.

Science (modern definition) was not created by science, but by philosophy; and more precisely, by logic and epistemology — Samuel Lacrampe

You're omitting a crucial ingredient, namely, observation (and experiment, which is a type of observation).

Also, I don't agree science is boring, in the least. It is scintillating, in my view.

"To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world , and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason , this and nothing else is philosophy."
-Schopenhauer

Science?

I once saw somebody once put it this way: "Science is a nicely-packaged philosophy".

I believe that Susan Haack has identified one of the characteristics of scientism as the preoccupation with and obsession with demarcating what is and is not science.

Scientism or no scientism, has anybody been able to successfully demarcate science and non-science to the satisfaction of everybody else?

There is no airtight definition or demarcation of science.

Thoughts on the essence of ‘philosophy’ and ‘science’? — Samuel Lacrampe

I believe that it is in The Story of Philosophy where Will Durant says that science reduces and analyzes things while philosophy synthesizes things.

The essence of philosophy?

It is asking and attempting to answer the most fundamental questions in the Western intellectual tradition.

There is, of course, things like Asian philosophy.

But defining the essence of philosophy with Western civilization is not being ethnocentric--it is answering what most people mean by "philosophy" while being cognizant of the fact that the picture does not end there.

The picture does not even end with civilizations or their traditions. I believe that I was practicing philosophy when 10-year-old me asked a certain question even though I knew nothing about, and had no concept of, any intellectual tradition.

In other words, the question "What is the essence of philosophy?" is too vague.

It could probably be said that my 7-year-old great-niece practices philosophy, but she knows nothing about Aristotle, logic, science, ethics, etc. and has no concept of "the West".

I would conclude, therefore, that if you want to describe philosophy at its irreducible core then it is this: it is humans navigating by using things like ideas and concepts. Where a navigator is and where he/she wants to go depends on things like circumstances, personal values, strength of character, etc. The most successful navigators--represented by people of all kinds of circumstances, personal values, strengths of character, etc.--are considered to have wisdom.

You're omitting a crucial ingredient, namely, observation (and experiment, which is a type of observation). — Wayfarer

Observation in science is based on the idea that sense observation gives truth; and that idea is part of epistemology.

Philosophers like Hume accept that idea for particulars, but not for generals, on the grounds that uniformity in nature is not a necessity. Then extreme rationalists like Descartes will even reject that idea for particulars, on the grounds that there is the possibility of dreaming the sense observation.

That seems correct as well, for this definition is compatible with mine. Non-empirical truths are abstract and tend to be (always?) universal; and if abstract, then we need clear and distinct definitions to describe them; and if sense observation is the primary tool for empirical truths, reason is the primary tool for non-empirical truths.

I once saw somebody once put it this way: "Science is a nicely-packaged philosophy". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Science or the scientific method is a method built on philosophical premises such as "sense observation gives truth", "illogic gives falsehood", "uniformity of nature", and "causality". Science cannot analyze these premises because it presupposes them; but philosophy can.