That question about books has reminded me of something I keep neglecting to say

While I agree with you in general, having a nodding acquaintance with some of the more noted philosophers helps you observe and ask yourself the right questions in my experience. That said, I think Kierkegaard is the only real philosopher whom I have read one of his works all the way through--and that was for a literature course, not a philosophy one. In fact, most of my nodding exposure to philosophers comes from reading other literature in which their views of the world are referenced.

Thus my only criticism of your statement "I don't read in fact". If you are relying solely on what is streaming on your device -- or on your little, teensy window on this planet and universe -- you are limiting your observation exponentially. And therefore your questioning as well.

I always maintain that the greatest philosopher of all time is [i]Winnie The Pooh[/i], and many others agree with me (e.g., Tao of Pooh, The Te of Piglet, Pooh and The Philosophers, etc.). It is all about observing the behavior of others, dealing with life collectively, written to equally entertain a child and make an adult think. If you missed reading it as a child, it is not too late as an adult. And God Forbid, NOT the Disney version.

Are they relying on other to tell them how it works, or using them as inspiration for their own thoughts? Everyone looks for inspiration, not everyone seeks out Kafka for it.

I like to know others perspective and not just my own because I have limited experience in things. Kafka though, is the grandfather of surrealism so it's good for fiction.

I guess to gain different perspectives, even if those perspectives don't line up with theirs.

I'm always curious about that type of stuff because maybe, just maybe I've been missing something in my observations ...

Sorta like maybe a missing piece to the puzzle sorta thing

I respect the developed thinking of many other people. I do my own, also. But they have a certain bent that makes them capable of encapsulating their thoughts in a profound way which is shareable.

Most people are just not that verbally astute. Communication abilities and uncommon thinking patterns are helpful to society at large.

I think it is valuable for some people to read material by those well-known "thinkers," but I urge them to do it with a critical eye. What are the strengths and weaknesses of their positions? If you can't find any weaknesses, you need to apply more thought.

Philosphy itself is shrouded in all sorts of pretentious BS. But Mel Brooks sorted it all out for me decades ago in "History of the world Part 1" I a small skit where he refered to himself as a "Stand Up Philosopher". And it suddenly clicked for me. A Philosopher is just a stand up comedian who isnt funny...😷

Books aren't for everyone I guess.