Well, yes and no. We certainly know a lot more than people knew back then. We know vastly more about the cosmos, we know about atoms, we know about evolution, we know much about the brain.
We also face very different challenges than people millennia ago - we have weapons of mass destruction, more obesity than famine (in developed countries), social media, and so on.
Thus, I'd say only a small part of philosophy is still applicable and valuable today. (For example, Seneca was a Stoic, and Stoicism had much to say about physics and logic, which is pretty obsolete now, I'd say.)
There's a potential fallacy there, like thinking that old music was better, when what we still hear today is just the very best of old music.
People more than two millennia later still find what he said relevant. What is it that we have produced in the last century would meet that test ? How much of that will be due to our increased knowledge and technology ?
Knowing that physical and psychological state are linked, and that they affect each other.
We have ways of introspecting one's mind and body and understand the the "whys" of being an individual and also Human.
On that matter - my dad and my grandpa were alcoholics; and thus I have the same vice if I don’t pay attention to my motivations in life.
However knowing genetics didn’t help me understand that :)
Math is applied philosophy and theory of knowledge.
Physics is Math applied on reality.
Chemistry is applied Physics.
Biology is applied Chemistry.
I've seen Susskind convincingly (albeit shallowly) argue that more "primitive" animals understand physics and I would be surprised if it was easy to argue that animals understand mathematics without circular logic or quick and loose definitions of what math is.
Of course, I have asked many philosophical questions of myself, when understanding software. This, I've noticed, especially happens when you're crossing layers. For example, between hardware / assembly, assembly / C, C / OOP.
However, considering that we have not really come up with a language with which we can communicate with computers seamlessly, I have my doubts. Because, unless we have a language, we can't really philosophize.
This could be a problem due to the interfaces we have though. Or probably, because our interfaces with computers seem to be getting broader and richer with each generation of hardware, we haven't really been able to freeze on the language through which we communicate.