What a dull essay by someone who studied lots of things about philosophy, but never practiced any. Which is, by the way, simply thinking about thinking. Complex

What a dull essay by someone who studied lots of things about philosophy, but never practiced any. Which is, by the way, simply thinking about thinking. Complex terms and systems are strictly secondary, thinking is the thing. Questioning positions, wondering whether they are right or wrong for real — not because it's some logical exercise, what is true and what is false in principle, how do thoughts form and interact with each other, and so on. From this grow all big questions about the truth itself, and the world as a whole. And most often the ideas to doubt are your own, but self-criticism is all but absent from the essay. Even according to his own standard of “practical utility” (ugh), philosophy would help a lot. It would probably prevent relying on textbook stereotypes, like the one about “Dark Ages”, and looking condescendingly on all those “stupid ancient people”, help believe less in common propaganda, and generally hint that 19th century militant scientism is a bit dated position (in addition to being not that smart from the start). Of course, cork hats and cranium measurements fell out of fashion, but the rest looks quite familiar in people who are so loudly happy about “SCIENCE!!!”. Obviously, the description of “science” presented is as far from real science as this description of philosophy is far from real philosophy.