When? I think it was June 15, 1412 at 5:22 in the laboratory of... (just kidding!) I don't think such questions have very definite answers. "Philosophy" means "love of wisdom," and originally, any thoughtful example of truth-seeking counted as "philosophia"--the Greek word for philosophy. As you say, both are examples of our search for truth, and in that sense, both continue to interact, at various levels. However, one thing that distinguishes science is that it has a methodology tied to observations and experimentation, whereas much of what philosophers debate has not (yet, at any rate) lent itself to empirical resolution through observation and experimentation. We do "thought experiments" a lot of the time, but these results are not as reliable, as universal, or always replicable, in the ways that actual empirical experiments (which can be performed by anyone anywhere, with suitable equipment) are.

Yes. Let me explain: Identification with some group (religious, especially, but also philosophical) extends your ability to make a difference in the world by adding your efforts to those of others, rather than limiting your efforts to the confines of whatever you can do on your own. By joining Habitat for Humanity, for example, you will find you are much more effective in building homes for those who cannot otherwise afford them than if you go out and try to build such homes all by yourself and without others' help. On the other hand, you might also find that Habitat for Humanity did things in ways with which you could not entirely agree or be comfortable. I am not at all religious (indeed, I would say I am the opposite of religious, at least insofar as that involves believing in dieties and such things), but even I can't miss the fact that many churches are associated with very significant and very well organized charities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs, as they are...

Philosophers don't all agree because they won't listen to me ! Just kidding! In fact, I would really hate it if everyone's reactions to my views were: Oh, right. Well, that's it, then! That would be the end of philosophy, and I would not want to contribute to that ! There are lots of differences between what science does and what philosophy does, and one of these difference has to do with what I would call the domain of "appropriate responses." In science, the appropriate responses include (but are not entirely limited to): accept the theory and the data offered in its support, or hold the theory in suspence while one seeks to replicate (or fail to replicate) the data offered in support, or reject the theory because one has some other data that are incompatible with the theory. Much of what happens in philosophy (both where progress is made and where it is stalled) happens because we do not have access to the sort of data that clearly confirm or disconfirm our theories. Our...

It really depends upon the subject. In the area of formal logic, one can (not always readily or easily, mind you!) refute a hypothesis, for example, by showing that it entails a contradiction. In most areas of philosophy, however, the closest we can come to a refutation is to show that the hypothesis in question entails some consequence that is contrary to the very sorts of intuitions or cases that motivate the inquiry in the first place. Let me give one example of this sort--one that is often used in classroom discussions in the field of ethics. Suppose we are considering an ethical theory that holds value to consist in the maximization of benefits to all of those, collectively, who will be affected by the action. (There are ethical theories like this, generically called "consequentialist" theories.) But a standard criticism of this theory is that the mandate to maximize the overall benefit of all concerned could result in a mandate to inflict great suffering on a completely innocent...

I very much like your expression, "approximately true answers." That, it seems to me, is all that any of us can realistically hope to achieve in our thoughts about many things. So, perhaps, the only difference between the musings of the best philosophers and the most ordinary of people would be the degree of approximation they strive for--and in the best of cases, achieve. One of the things that has always concerned me on this sort of issue is the worry that our questions themselves betray us in their presumptions. Let me give you and example of a blatantly presumptuous question: Have you stopped abusing your lover? Blatantly presumptuous questions, of course, are fairly easy to deal with, because we can spot their false presumptions so readily. But might some of our most basic questions also have flawed presumptions? Let me use the ones you mention as examples. "Is it right to do X" obviously presumes that there is such a thing (or, if not a "thing," at least some applicable concept) as...

I am not sure what an "illegitimate" form of philosophizing would be--though different forms can be of varying quality. I also see quite a bit of activity at this website that looks to me like philosophical counseling, and I do think that philosophers are better equipped than others to handle most (if not all) of the questions that get posted here. Plainly, there are issues that would be better suited for psychologists (or psychiatrists, or other physicians). But looking around this site should provide pretty good evidence that we are able to answer--or at least respond intelligently and with certain special skills--to some kinds of questions (namely, philosophical ones)!

Hmmm...so do you think this question is also unanswerable? How do you know the questions you refer to are actually unanswerable (as opposed, say, to be not yet answered)? At the beginning of Aristotle's Metaphysics , he says that philosophy begins in wonder. It seems pretty clear that the human race is strongly inclined to this activity--wondering. If sometimes we wonder about questions that actually can't be answered, I doubt if we got there on purpose. When we wonder, it seems that we seek answers! Anyway, I would humbly propose to you that neither you nor I are in a position to say that some (wonderful) question is actually unanswerable-- so far unanswered, perhaps, but not necessarily unanswerable. I suppose there are some questions that are unanswerable (or at least some that would need further specification before being answered)--for example, if I were to ask now, "Is it?" (Is it what ? What "it"?) Similarly, there are questions that cannot be answered in the...

There is an ancient saying (in Greek): "Chalepa ta kala." This means: "Noble things are difficult." Not all things that are valuable are difficult...but some are. And part of their value, I think, derives from the difficulty. In difficult endeavors, even the smallest successes are thrilling. But here is another answer (also with ancient roots): Aristotle, in the beginning of his work, Metaphysics , says that "philosophy begins in wonder." I think that's right, and it is right about any kind of inquiry at all . But that means that producing results, in an inquiry, is going to be difficult--because in every serious inquiry, we begin in wonder. And we wonder because we are ignorant : If we already knew what we wondered about, we wouldn't wonder! Conquering ignorance is a tough business; as Socrates noted (see Plato's Apology ) even recognizing our own ignorance can be difficult...and is all too rare (then and now).

I really think it is a good idea to be as well-rounded in your training as you can be. I often find myself using skills not normally associated with ancient Greek scholarship, my own specialization. The best thing about "analytic philosophy" is that it provides useful ways of looking at philosophical questions--no matter who framed them, and no matter whose answers you might find the most interesting.

I suspect that "philosophical intuition" really has something to do with one's capacities to do logical and analytical reasoning. But your question really depends upon what you mean by "intuition." Plenty of the most significant and controversial philosophical theories would not qualify in anyone's view as common sensical (consider Plato's theory of Forms, Berkeley's immaterialism, Quine's nominalism), but the brilliant philosophers who arrived at these theories applied their talents and capacities in developing them. If it is these talents and capacities (which I suspect are both natural in their basis, but also highly developable into their fullest realization) are what you mean by "intuition," then "philosophical intuition" is certainly not the same thing as common sense. Moreover, from many years of observation, I can say with certainty (and with some personal embarrassment over being an exemplar of the sort of thing I am about to note) that there seems often to be little correlation between a...