>>520978208
I find this doubtful in multiple ways. It's like saying you only need one resource (coal) for the industrial revolution while ignoring that you also need to build the machinery in which to burn it, or that you just need marble to make beautiful statues ignoring that you need the metal and wood for the tools to cut it.
You can say Newton or Maxwell were more important for the "advancement" society than Milton or Chaucer, but all the great scientists were raised in the cultural environment and zeitgeist brought about by the great ruminations and discussions of philosophers, as well as the admiration for the beauty of the clockwork universe sung by poets and justified by theologians.
As someone said, if philosophy is great at one thing, that's creating new fields of study.
If anything the reason progress is stagnating in our currently civilization (other than niggers and kikes) is the fact it's become sterile and overly focused on mere hard sciences while ignoring the worth of philosophy and humanities.
And this is without mentioning the fact that with how correlated the various domains of G are, a poet is very likely to give birth to a scientist and viceversa.
