As usual, the points I spend so much time on explaining are totally lost on my readers. I never said that philosophy should not recognize and adopt TBG. What I said is that there is more than TBG to be considered. TBG are the overlying values to be applied to matter, mind and spirit; they are not the philosophy itself but one factor in its development. In order to make a philosophy, you also have to consider the physical world, the intellect and religion (causation, duty and worship). There are only three elements of reality: fact, idea and relation. In making a philosophy you have to consider all three elements of reality. If you don’t, you’ll lose people, and maybe that’s why no one has any interest in the subject. Ya gotta have something they can relate to, something in the real world, not just in the ether. Forgive me for not including the quotes. I can’t deal with the formatting issue and I have a foot of snow to shovel, another foot on the way. Nice chatting. Thanks for the response. See you later if I don’t slip a disc. 
Careful there! You better move down south where winters have all but disappeared. Hope you are warm and well stocked. Evidently you have power.
So now we’re discussing the breadth of philosophy. We’ve already stipulated what the authors declare, that it is the reconciler of science and religion. Science includes the physical, in fact, nothing else in its current state. Religion necessarily embraces goodness. And philosophy itself is beauty’s greatest observer, analyzer, and advocate. TB&G are inclusive of philosophy, not the reverse, I submit.
Bringing philosophy down to the level of the average person is the responsibility of teachers (all of us at some point), who, in order to succeed, must observe the Master’s advice to give milk to babes, and presumably, solid food to the mature. Eventually, I believe, the appeal and necessity of philosophy will triumph and it will be taught from kindergarten to the grave. Some good teachers, teachers with genuine talent for it, can make just about any subject palatable.
Yesterday I was inspired by comments about teaching by a reader on Facebook, which have resonance with some of your words. She wrote in part:
…My best teachers were able to make the subject relevant to me, the individual, while showing me how my participation, in understanding the relative truth of the course, could help me benefit my fellowman. For example, my greatest history teacher let the musically inclined create and perform the music of the period, those who were speakers, narrated the history of the times, while those philosophically versed, narrated the ” thinking” of that time period.. Therefore, most were thrilled that their personal ” talent ” was being used in the comprehensive effort to understand a distant people and their mark on history. Since we were asked, to use our distinct talents, history became relevant to us. In addition, I have noticed, a great love for one’s fellowman seems to be the prerequisite of a great philosophy or teacher. In my experience, great mentors engage their pupils with a sense that they are an important part of the process. To me philosophy is the art of thinking and we all think somewhat differently. Consequently, I have come to recognize personal philosophy, wisely, coordinated by truth, goodness and beauty, also, as an individualized ” talent ” with individualized resources in music, science, social studies, dance, art, labor, parenting, teaching etc. If we speak to people about what is important to them, they gradually unfold their personal insight and their progressive philosophy of life. Then, the teacher may nurture this learning process, while encouraging the coordinating factors of enlightened insight.
