>>24535018
I counter your claim that any "truth" can be reached through philosophy. Kant, for example, suggests that some truths are beyond our comprehension, and so what we actually do is explore our limited, self-created region of reality. I agree with this from a biological perspective, but you may not, and there's no real truth to be found except a consensus.

Regardless, even if the intended purpose is to identify a "truth", the majority of philosophy readers do not contribute to the canon. Their purpose for reading is as I have suggested: development of the mind through construction of models posited by their presumed intellectual superiors.

To be spoken to is also not equivalent to reading an organized text. We do not elucidate our logic completely when speaking, and the listener only participates to compose an immediate response. When I read essays or philosophy, however, I am forced to follow the author's words precisely, and in doing so, retrace the patterns of thought that once fired within their brain. It is the closest I can get to becoming someone else; in a fantasy scenario, being inside someone's head would simply mean the replacement of my own thoughts with theirs, which is approximated by reading.

>Every so often someone gayly tries to defend highbrow literature because it enhances our capacity for empathy, as if finer and finer experiences of aesthetic beauty isn't a thing, or of no value in itself.

I have no idea what the context or purpose of this sentence is. You sound mentally troubled