I don't mind that approach, as long as philosophy is treated as art.

But we have an even poorer comparison there. Works of philosophy are presented, reviewed, and discussed as arguments, not as aesthetic artifacts. I know of no philosophers who think the aesthetics of an argument is anything but a secondary consideration, and no part of philosophical training looks like the training an author of novels or poet might get. Philosophers are expected to be clear and engaging, but not artists. I'd say it has about as much in common with art as does physics or mathematics.

With physics, we could be having a conversation about some theory or experiment, but we wouldn't be doing physics. But just having this conversation about philosophy is itself philosophy. We're doing philosophy, right now, in exactly the same sense professionals do. And one of the things we're doing is arguing about what the right thing to think is, and we're holding ourselves to standards of rationality. So there it looks a little bit like science. On the other hand, neither of us is deploying any fixed method, and we're not trying work out the implications of a specific theory of intellectual activity we both accept. So there it doesn't seem like a science. What is it that we're doing, and how are we doing it?