Yes that is largely correct.
A lot of it has been turned into rhetoric pursuing self interests. Self interests come first - everything else second.
So…
I mean this begs for follow up.
Maybe the largest topic possible.
Which neoroscientific theory rules now where once Aristotle ruled?
Emmm… no.
Philosophy has very little to do with neuroscience or psychology except for proposing methodologies for behavior due to neuroscience or psychology concerns. Philosophy is about as related to those two subjects as mathematics is.
Yes, you are right.
I don’t think Dennett would agree. Nor would Hofstadter. The former gives credence to neuroscientific theories of consciousness; the latter expands mathematics in an exploration of consciousness. It is only in a marriage of these disciplines that we can get any clues as to what consciousness is. See Dennett’s “Consciousness Explained” and Hofstadter’s
“Gödel, Escher, Bach.” Or just read Changeuax (SIC) on the evolution of ethics. And shouldn’t philosophy be involved in the debates about human consciousness? Shouldn’t philosophy be the arbitrator in these physical to mental or physical vs mental debates? See the short book, “What Makes Us Think.” (Ricoeur, Changeuax (SIC),
“It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead.”