[Looksmax] Bad philosophers

[Honest]

fr tho, i think philosophy is just waste product of language. language was evolved to transfer solid information, about hows and whens not whys.

is it ironic that you give a "why" to justify your explanation? 

anyway, this is reasonably common theme in philosophy. nietzsche mentions the evolutionary utility of language to attack our concepts of logic. wittgenstein also concerns himself with the utility of language and its inability to meaningfully address philosophical abstractions

Wittgenstein:

Most propositions and questions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language. (They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.) And so it is not to be wondered at that the deepest problems are really no problems.
TLP, 4.003

Nietzsche:

Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals-those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously-were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar-an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal-is what first created any basis for logic. 
[...]
At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life.
[...]
No living beings would have survived if the apposite tendency-to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgment rather than be just-had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.
GS, 111

In every chemical process, for example, quality appears as a "miracle," as ever; also, every locomotion; nobody has "explained" a push. But how could we possibly explain anything? We operate only with things that do not exist: lines, planes, bodies, atoms, divisible time spans, divisible spaces. How should explanations be at all possible when we first turn everything into an image, our image!
GS 112