the antagonism between the specialties of science and philosophy. The latter aims, as art aims, at imparting to life and conduct the utmost depth and significance: in the former mere knowledge is sought and nothing else—whatever else be incidentally obtained.
This is accurate.
However, does the author intend to imply that art is not useful? That imparting meaning to life and conduct, while purely artificial and emanating from our imagination, still dishonest?
I don’t know about the author, but as long as we’re conscious about the source of this “meaning” then, I’d argue it is honest. In fact, it is celebratory!
