You seem to be fixated on the academy. I agree that philosophy and some of the other academic humanities departments have become pompous and socially irrelevant. However, that has little to do with the roles of philosophy, theology, and literature in human history. The humanities have suffered as professional disciplines because of the rise of neoliberalism, the capture of popular culture by a crude, self-destructive, and infantilizing capitalistic mindset. That mindset has infiltrated the academy via the influx of college administrators.

You point out that artists have had patrons, but I never said the arts would fare well without the STEM subjects. I didn’t engage in juvenile gambits of cultural imperialism like you did. I don’t suffer from the arts major’s equivalent of scientism. I criticize excesses on all sides.

You say society has decided that technology is worth more than whatever the humanities provide. Even if that were true, it would be a fallacious appeal to popularity unless you intend merely to report what’s happening. Just because something’s popular doesn’t mean it’s prudent, wise, honourable, moral, or sane. The humanities are the subjects that delve most into the latter values.

You say our philosophical dialogue—yes, we’ve been having a philosophical dialogue here—is made possible by technology. So what makes technology possible? Ultimately, the anomaly of human nature that gave rise directly to the humanities subjects, to religion, philosophy, history, and so on. Our anomalous qualities include self-awareness, reason, autonomy, creativity, curiosity, and aggressive ambition. Or did you think the direction of dependence goes only one way?

You say the humanities need to clean up their act in the academy to become socially relevant. I’d agree. And I’d remind you that STEM-driven society outside the academy is creating a mighty large mess (the destruction of the ecosystems we depend on), due largely, as I say in the article, to the neglect of the humanities’ reflection on our ultimate values.