[woodruffw]

> Yeah, a rare few philosophers did some precursor work to my field before it was its own field of study.

We're talking about the late 19th and 20th centuries in the cases of Frege and Russell (two of dozens), well into mathematics being its own field of study. I brought up the 5th century BC to show a continuous line of inquiry, but you can look into most philosophy departments today to see novel work in the philosophy of mathematics. I studied under some professors who did that work.

> If the best thing you can say about the pursuit is that many years ago its members contributed to studies we now think of as separate disciplines, well, that’s not much.

I'm not understanding this reasoning. The "separate disciplines" you're talking about would not exist without philosophy. All modern computing, mathematics, and political science stems directly from relatively recent discoveries and insights by philosophers. In my book it's a sign of tremendous success, not failure, for one field to spawn another.

[bwasti]

>would not exist without philosophy >stems directly from relatively recent discoveries and insights by philosophers

You are affirming the consequent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[jacobush]

We have only the timeline we live in. Praising the impact and efforts of anyone for anything can be attacked as affirming the consequent.

[bwasti]

no. This is a response to the claim that these things would otherwise not exist