Max asked:

Once upon a time all subjects would have been classified as "philosophy" — mathematics —
chemistry — psychology — astronomy — physics — and so on were all subjects studies by the
"philosopher".

As each discipline became more mature, and developed theories of sufficient complexity and
soundness (and may I dare to say became useful) it peeled away from philosophy to become an area
of study which stood alone.

Now universities have many many departments set up to study subjects which would once have been
a part of philosophy.

Presumably if a new subject area which is presently a part of philosophy becomes strong enough it
too will leave the nest.

Philosophy (these days) therefore seems to be the scrap heap of discussions and theories which
never really got of the ground. Almost by definition if a subject area develops any real solutions it
ceases to be philosophy (like the above examples).

Is it time for the few remaining to jump the sinking ship — or can philosophy still serve a useful
purpose?

============

Your questions are, if I'm well: (1) Is philosophy a sinking ship, and (2) if not what useful purpose
does it serve?

To answer your first question:

Partly you answered it yourself. Philosophy is about questions, while the resulting sciences are about
answers. As soon as serious research for an answer to a specific question is started, THEN it is not a
philosophic question anymore. That doesn't mean every philosophic question results in a science, but
that most essential questions start as philosophy.

Now your second question:

An example. Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea paradigm shifts. He was also a physician, but for this
science this idea at first was too vague. So he wrote a philosophical work named The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions.This work is mentioned by sociologists, physicians and philosophers, but it
started as philosophy.

So the purpose of philosophy is valuing every new idea, however strange. This habit made it survive
in evolution. That doesn't mean be uncritical but unprejudiced. Present postmodern philosophy may
seem strange, but possibly hides a useful core. Let them be. Philosophy is about ideas, that
preferably contradict or extend the other existing sciences.

BUT if questions in philosophy could be solved by an existing science, than those questions are NOT
philosophical, and don't belong in philosophy.

Henk Tuten

Yes, one way to view philosophy is in terms of subject matter, and then (although this is somewhat
controversial) I think you're basically correct) one finds that virtually all the sciences, math, etc., were
at one point branches of philosophy, and have left and become their own fields as they've become
empirically investigated. A somewhat sad comment on philosophy... until you realize two things. One
is that it's nice to be in on the birth of a science, isn't it. The other is that we don't know that we've run
out of sciences to give birth to... look at what's happening with cognitive science and consciousness
right now.

In addition, one might argue that some subject matters will not be empirical; morality, for example. I
do not agree with this, by and large, but it's a point, and in addition morality is certainly not empirical
yet. Further, what about things like learning how to live together, how to live a happy life, how to be
productive and satisfied in the world? It may be that science could give guidelines for this, indeed I
think it likely... but that won't be the case for individuals. Each person will have to apply their general
thinking to their individual situation, or a combination of that general thinking and science, to live a
satisfactory life.

Now, aside from philosophy as subject matter, there's philosophy as process, i.e., as the study of
process. What is the best way to learn to think? What should we think about? That is, I very strongly
believe that philosophy, done correctly, teaches clear thinking and flexibility better than any specific
subject area. In fact I think that this is a prime reason philosophy should be taught in lower-level
schools as well as higher-level. And this relates to my paragraph above. If you want to apply your
own thinking about morality, how to live a good life, etc., to your own individual life, then don't you
want to know how to think these things through, come to conclusions, and apply them? Look at all the
mistaken moral systems, utopias, and so forth. So many people jump to conclusions, harbor
contradictory ideas... the list of possible process mistakes is enormous.

So, no, the ship isn't sinking, and we shouldn't jump it. We just need to distinguish this particular ship
from the others.

Steven Ravett Brown