If we could answer your question, we would be able to predict the future direction of science. But science is full of surprises. Moreover, what gets called "science" (or math or logic) and what gets called "philosophy" is to some degree arbitrary. I don't think disciplinary boundaries are very important. What I do think is important is the questions themselves. So why not ask the questions and not worry about whether they are "science" or "philosophy"?

Some contemporary philosophers do publish philosophies of life. For example, Paul Thagard's "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" (Princeton, 2010)and Robert Nozick, "The Examined Life" (1990). I suggest that you look at the article on the meaning of life in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There is a good bibliography at the end of the article. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/

Since I was the one that introduced the concept of "good judgment" I feel I should explain. I am not introducing a mystical concept; just one that we currently don't understand very well. Deductive reasoning is lovely but it doesn't get us very far, as Hume discovered. I am all in favor of articulating good judgment. Some have already begun the project e.g. Nelson Goodman in the "new" (now about 60 years old) problem of induction. Another way of framing the issue is to say that the truth of the conclusion depends not only on the deductive logic used to get there but also on the premises. How do we know that our premises are true? The most we can do is exercise forms of good judgment in choosing them.

You ask an interesting question. If Philosophy was nothing more than deductive logic, then someone with skills in deductive logic but developmental issues elsewhere would probably excel in philosophy. But most people think that Philosophy involves more than deductive logic--it involves the exercise of "good judgment" which in fact we do not understand very well. Good judgment may or may not be absent of emotion: the philosopher David Hume puts emotion front and center in his ethical theories. We have a very poor understanding of autism spectrum disorders (indeed the diagnostic category of Asperger's has recently been removed from the DSM ). It used to be thought that people with autism lacked emotion; that is generally speaking not true (although the emotions may be different from those of neurotypicals). On rereading your question, perhaps you see a correspondence between some philosophers' apparent detachment and some autistic behavior. There may be an overlap here but I doubt that it...

Anyone and everyone can become a philosopher by asking questions about knowledge, existence and ethics. Being a philosopher is like being a writer--democratic in that the opportunity and the identity are available to all, but tough in that making a living at doing it is a privilege that most societies only support for a few people.

There are two issues here: whether or not philosophy departments are sexist, and whether or not philosophers devalue "subjective" reasoning. You seem to be more concerned about the second issue, so I will address that. It is true that many philosophers (male, female and trans, sexist and non-sexist), especially those of an analytic bent, are devoted to a general and abstract conception of objectivity. Such philosophers are usually willing to acknowledge that experience is particular/subjective, and that different people have different experiences. There is a good deal of room in their positions to acknowledge different social identities. It is true that some feminist philosophers, such as Sandra Harding, critique general and abstract conceptions of objectivity, claiming that they are supported by an underlying white male middle class partiality. Some non-feminist philosophers (especially in Continental and pragmatic philosophy) also reject general and abstract conceptions of objectivity.

You make an interesting observation about yourself that is important to contextualize. You find a similarity between the kind of economics you are learning and the kind of philosophy you are learning. I dare say that if you were reading Jean Paul Sartre you would find different "parts of your brain" involved! If you are learning the analytic philosophy literature and rational market economics perhaps what they have in common is abstraction and generality? Many prominent philosophers contributed greatly to many fields (biology, physics, psychology), not only to economics. I'm skeptical about any special relation between economics and philosophy.

You make an interesting observation about yourself that is important to contextualize. You find a similarity between the kind of economics you are learning and the kind of philosophy you are learning. I dare say that if you were reading Jean Paul Sartre you would find different "parts of your brain" involved! If you are learning the analytic philosophy literature and rational market economics perhaps what they have in common is abstraction and generality? Many prominent philosophers contributed greatly to many fields (biology, physics, psychology), not only to economics. I'm skeptical about any special relation between economics and philosophy.

In writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to help non-professional philosophers with their philosophical questions. That desire does not influence the answer that I give, it just motivates me to give some answer or another. Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to point out that emotions should not be thought of as ipso facto "irrational" or "unreasonable." That desire is connected with the answer I give, but may or may not have influenced it. Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to appear on this website. Again, that desire does not influence the answer that I give. Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to attack the philosophy of David Hume. That desire is connected with the answer I give, but may or may not have influenced it.

What I have always loved about philosophy is its openness to questions, including foundational questions. It's where you can take all the "deep" questions from other disciplines that active practitioners sometimes don't have time for, unless their discipline is at a sticking point. I don't love all of philosophy, but I continue to enjoy the points where it engages with other disciplines and can make a difference to them.

Years ago when I entered the field of philosophy I might have written exactly the same thing as you. Doing philosophy (well) means being willing to challenge those things previously taken for granted. This is exciting (eye opening) as well as, sometimes, troubling. If you are the only person you know who is doing this, it can also be lonely. I suggest that you find some philosophers to talk to.