How worthless is Philosophy?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The axial philosophers of the east started from a different place and ended up with wildly divergent conclusions about what philosophy was primarily for.  Nietzsche pointed this out in comparing the two - with western philosophy as being full of theological statements and virtues - and eastern philosophy being comparatively naturalistic and practical.  The reason I point this out is because it might be all the more surprising, then, to realize that both sets ended up on the same sort of "fate of the philosopher" even as they disagreed on his (and thus philosophy's) use to the state and fellows.  

Laozi says that the ruler with the highest virtue doesn't deliberately operate with his rulings.  He conforms to the nature and flow of things.  To my mind, this is an analog for the man taking shelter under the wall.  The text gets more explicit in parts - particularly with respect to the ideal state.  A small state of nothing but people leaning under a wall.  Unencumbered by desire or ambition, living simplistic and private lives, whose only goal is to be personally virtuous and thus reduce some small measure of what both moralizing philosophies see as the fallen or chaotic nature of the world.

The ‘chaotic nature of the world’ has always been better addressed by things like sanitation,  vaccines, and agriscience than by philosophy.

In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of a single practical problem of human existence that has been solved by philosophy.

Boru