At least 2 other top-level posters here have suggested that philosophy might be dying due to their relevance being superceded by fields like physics and neuroscience.<p>I have a similar notion. But what I feel most lacking in philosophy are not its everyday relevance, but its methods. Mathematics has communicated with the natural sciences and continues to contribute by providing a watertight framework. The natural sciences have had empiricism and the scientific method; and most academic fields are today exploring new data-driven methods and computational analysis to develop new insights.<p>Much work that I&#x27;ve seen in analytic philosophy, on the other hand, continue the tradition of thought experiments and simple classical logic, rarely venturing into more expressive models and arguments, perhaps computational.<p>I personally think that the strong reliance on inexpressive logic rather than creating more expressive mathematical models of philosophical frameworks actively hinders it. Philosophers should be actively and profusely creating metaphysical and ethical frameworks in mathematics, not unlike physicists and economists.