Philosophy is doing a bad job of explaining its importance to the world. Philosophy nerds care about it, but everyone else thinks it's stupid.
Philosophy is doing a bad job of explaining its importance to the world. Philosophy nerds care about it, but everyone else thinks it's stupid.
As to your other comment, well, that included a rather oversimplified example of utilitarianism, which many utilitarians will not even share. It's very easy to make naive utilitarian calculations, and in many cases there's too much uncertainty to even make calculations. You can only say that naive utilitarianism is easier than deontology. No offense intended, but maybe some people were downvoting you for this.
As far as i see the philosophy fails to correctly abstract and incorporate modern advances in scientific knowledge and technological development. While such abstraction and incorporation naturally would take time and make philosophy lagging behind, the majority of philosophy don't even bother to do it and dismisses the reality outright, a very stupid thing to do.
The philosophy's role of being a guiding science on the bleeding edge of scientific exploration of the world have been lost by the "philosophers" as the hard work of understanding of scientific reality was replaced by pseudo-scientific hand-waiving. That hand-waiving is easily noticeable even by casual observer and results in total loss of respect.
More than 30 years ago a freshman at University i had a great interest in philosophy, the new market capitalism in USSR resulted in great availability of books, including philosophical one, and we had a blast. With years as my knowledge grew, i started to see the philosophy's failure to provide both - a well build abstraction as well as exploration guidance - and started to see it only just as temporary mind crutches, a band-aid for the lack of knowledge, like those Ancient Greeks' myths.
And Plato today would have got Deep NN PhD and would be sitting at Google as a senior manager or director pulling $5M+ a year.
You say philosophy has a failure to provide a "well build abstraction as well as exploration guidance" but how would that work? Philosophy is a large subject area, but I'll take the liberty to say it isn't required to be straight forward with concrete answers, more so to provoke thinking about what makes something straight forward and concrete.