Woah, philosophy and art are two massive subjects. Historically, both have been treated as separate subjects for good reasons.
However there is some overlap, such as something which is beautiful to the senses.
But the distinction between the two is that philosophy is usually a set of distinct thought-experiment(s) and art is an observer's perspective into the mind of an artist(s).
Largely, scientists scoff at philosophy due to the intrinsic nature that most of it relies in the realm of "thought experiments." Which may be hard for some people, but I've never had an issue with wild imaginations.
Yet, I would argue the Philosopher's Stone is one of the most mythological thing known to human history. And I'm sure 99.999% of people couldn't distinguish the Philosopher's Stone from a generic looking lake rock. Right?
the types that scoff usually are pseudo scientists who had gone through just enough academic brainwashing that makes them believe everything can be modeled as a system. it's the mindset that dominates Tech/STEM sadly. those who scream the loudest (usually those who read Sokal) are also the most clueless about what framework to use when. "A city is not a tree"[1], by Christopher Alexander is a fantastic example of how a "science above everything" mindset keeps us from having good things. Another example of fools (we have many) would be the idea that smart-contracts, blockchains can be used to model very complex social "systems of systems" (or anyone who peddles silver bullets).
I get deep satisfaction from modeling business processes into software and seeing the system up and running. And, the more I do this and the better I get at it, the gap between my models and the actual thing become ever more apparent. I think getting good at software can lead you down a couple of paths -- either coming to think that everything can truly be modeled in software given enough time and resources, or growing in humility and realizing the limits of software and the unbridgeable gap between models (however useful and impressive) and larger reality.
However there is some overlap, such as something which is beautiful to the senses.
But the distinction between the two is that philosophy is usually a set of distinct thought-experiment(s) and art is an observer's perspective into the mind of an artist(s).
Largely, scientists scoff at philosophy due to the intrinsic nature that most of it relies in the realm of "thought experiments." Which may be hard for some people, but I've never had an issue with wild imaginations.
Yet, I would argue the Philosopher's Stone is one of the most mythological thing known to human history. And I'm sure 99.999% of people couldn't distinguish the Philosopher's Stone from a generic looking lake rock. Right?