@SRCHicks Can I trouble you patience for one more question? And I recognize in a

@SRCHicks
Can I trouble you patience for one more question?
And I recognize in advance that your undestanding of Philosophy is quite a bit closer to that of reflection thorough the lens of the sciences and the history of thought- while I’m more interested in the public’s interest and the rather religouis devotion to common andobvious anchoring my the first philosopher that provides the youngm mind with a world model that justifies it priors.

I understand the attraction to theology for some. But, why is it that much of philosophy is still so attractive, when we have computation, linguistics, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, behavioral economics, a vast history of law, and the spectrum of economics that measure the consequences, and even a deep understanding of evoloutionary processes within and acxross generations and civilizations?

Is it that is a fantasy moral literature for the above average? In other words, its in an escapist literature? Is it a source of mindfulness for the literary and empathic but not disagreeable and objective? Is it that it’s more accessible? That’s always felt a suspicious answer. While was always biased to the sciences, LIke Durant in my study of philosphy “I found no answers there”. I studied it mostly to understand how we failed upward and what went wrong.

Though I’m not sure I consider the Popper-Kuhn, Hayek-Becker, Turing-Chomsky, categories of thinkers philosophers as much as struggling to overcome man’s crashing into the wall of scale after the industrial revolution brought about the 20th century awareness of our world and universe. And desperatly searching for an analytic model to contain it while suppressing the instincts to base it like Spencer on Darwin and Malthus. 😉

Apologies for again begging your attention.

Thanks for all you do. Admire you greatly.
You’ll always be one of my heroes. 😉

Reply addressees: @SRCHicks