This is not a direct answer to the question, just a comment on Feynman's perspective on philosophy which may shed some light to the OP. Based on what I've read, I didn't knew him personally.
Feynman was known for his pejorative opinion of philosophers.
On one side, he has a strong argument: there are no corresponding ontology to express the ideas that pure mathematics suggest about the fundamental reality. Moreover, philosophy could be misleading, since it is based on entities that are fallacies in the fundamental reality. We have not even words that allow expressing the noumenal reality. Our language objectifies every perception, but fundamental nature is not made of objects, therefore any ontology is by definition excluded. Therefore, there would be no place for philosophy on this almost-pure discipline. Hillary Putnam expressed this perspective as this: "philosophical interpretation is just what mathematics doesn't need".
But on the other hand, making mathematics without philosophy is risky. Several philosophers warned of the fallacy of pure mathematics without a rational significance (read it multiple times, but can't find any quotation right now, sorry, but anyway, the argument is sound), which implies making philosophy to assess what has been done and what is to do. Mathematical formulas without a philosophical interpretation cannot be considered as knowledge (a friend sustains that knowledge is judgement, which fits appropriately here; we cannot have a judgement of a set of symbols). There are several examples: when the three laws of thermodynamics were obtained, everybody was happy... until we (philosophically) realized that there was no formal definition of temperature; in consequence, the zeroth law was formulated. Another example: an artificial intelligence neural model is not knowledge, just a set of numbers. Another example: we have a formula of entropy, but its philosophical interpretation is so complex, that its original definition has lead to the development of hundreds of papers that can be contradictory. In fact, in discordance with his disdain for philosophers, Feynman was himself a remarkable philosopher of QED, and perhaps that's one of the most important reasons his writings are a mandatory lecture for beginners. His interaction diagrams, implying complex ideas about time, space and fundamental interactions are a beautiful philosophical interpretation of the fundamental reality, which allows new scientists to continue upon a solid foundation. Thanks to his philosophical development. When he writes against philosophers, we can just say... Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman.