> Historically is was a place for science and mathmatics. Since those disciplines now have there own fields, what the hell good is philosphy?
What good are science and mathematics? Well, some of it has practical application. But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting. People don't become scientists or mathematicians for "the good" of anything, they just do it because it's interesting. It just happens to have useful side effects down the line. So it is with philosophy which, as you mention, produced those fields. So by the transitive property, philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math. Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues. Science is nothing without interpretation, and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics.
>Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.
That might have been your goal, but from your post I'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you. It would be like me saying the reason I'm not a professional soccer player is that "I realized it has nothing to offer the world" rather than the actual reason, which is that I wasn't good at it. I suspect similar is the case here.
>Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
Actually, if evolution has taught us anything this question, it's that was the chicken. But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is, as I mentioned, unsurprising. This may shock you, but it's quite hard to become a philosopher. Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required.
>If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.
Your idea of serious philosophical problems are "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno, which were refuted as soon as he produced them?
>These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.
Like I said, the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited. Contemporary philosophy is, in some respects, quite difficult to differentiate from science. Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience, biology, cognitive science, etc. Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case.