Right, so this is why I make the comment that you speak of philosophy as ethics.
Philosophy is more meta than this: understanding reasons for looking at anything, even philosophy itself, as “for” anything, or even if it is “for” anything at all - not implying it isn’t, just meaning that there are all kinds of understandings.
You, are being a Utilitarian, fairly straight forward from your argument thus far…
“How long will the same sense of use last?” is your question - a good question for that particular field of questioning. I am sure this is not all you are, but this is the vein along which you are arguing so far.
As I was going to say, that surreptitious75 said first, science expands the how, not the why.
Although, with its advancements in explorations of the brain, it even appears to be answering the “how” of “why” itself…
Yes, or for reason, which minimises values in order to more accurately map them to reality: ultimately a valuation to minimise valuation, allowing the potential for either increased subsequent valuation or otherwise. I am reminded of the Nietzschean metaphor of taking a step backward - perhaps in order to jump forward further.
This is where the dialectical construction of “reality” comes in: emerging from both observation and the lack of sense-making of certain observations in the context of others - that may result in such counter-observational conclusions as the human being considering the “without the human being”. We all learn this, from around six years old when we learn theory of mind: that things may be running about without our seeing them running about - and it turns out that doing so models and predicts observations (taken within the context of dialectically conceived “reality”) far more truly than necessarily denying a human being running about when there is no human being around to see them running about. Not saying you should do either, I’m just sticking with the clarification of what “reason” is - which is not to do with absolute, but relative consistency.
I have no doubt that many men abandon reason as soon as it ceases to coincide with their interest - and there may very well be short term benefits, at least seemingly, for them to do so. This is no argument against the use of reason being a more successful strategy, but more of an argument affirming the irrational tendencies of some men…
This sophomoric tangent is a little annoying. Suffice to say that there is no “just subjective” when all is subjective - only when there is an objective to be superior, which to a subjectivist there isn’t.
So there’s no connect between each side of the argument and you are each speaking past one another - pointless.