> Much of "modern" philosophy is totally bullshitesque, no empirism, no intellectual rigor / epistemology, add to this complex subjects studied by people with n

> Much of "modern" philosophy is totally bullshitesque, no empirism, no intellectual rigor / epistemology, add to this complex subjects studied by people with no knowledge about them and bullshit artists (which is a real skill for selling your books). In parralel of the unification of science happening in the 20th century, a few philosophers actually remembered that philosophy is the love(Phil) of truth (soph) (which indeed is antithetic to BS and to multiple incompatible theories). This really isn't the case. Analytical philosophy today remains extremely strong on rigor. What many philosophers think they study is how to apprehend the world in a sustainable way. There isn't much focus on cutting-edge empirical facts, since the focus is to develop a framework robust to new possible empirical developments, and there was never a focus on empirical facts throughout the history of the tradition. > They read totally nonsensical texts (that use figure of speech melted with sophisms), they do not understand that they do not understand, and then call the author a genius, an "intellectual"(post modernism would perfectly fit such a category)) Philosophers don't really care much for such a writing style today. Academic philosophers read past authors for their philosophical content and tolerate the prose because what they seem to say is valuable. Write a philosophy paper like that today and nobody will read you (if you're a student, your professor will fail you), since today's philosophers value the clarity of an argument and don't care much for talking over each other with ambiguous language. Today's philosophers also don't really naively imbibe the thought of past great figures of philosophy. They are great since they pioneered a very useful mode of thought robust enough to survive the ages, though needing modifications.