My strong suspicion is that 19th and 20th philosophy was borne out of the age of legalism and lawyers so you get all these complex interlocking arguments so as to argue an airtight case using very specific words with specific meanings.

Whereas Socrates is just a series of dunks. Which also happens with the teachings of Jesus schooling the Pharisees, or that time the Buddha argued against the caste system by dunking on a Brahmin with a bunch of exposing-your-hypocrisy burns.

The modern comedian philosopher is just speaking the current vernacular when talking about social issues from the perspective of a bad breakup or buying gas station dick pills.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My strong suspicion is that 19th and 20th philosophy was borne out of the age of legalism and lawyers so you get all these complex interlocking arguments so as to argue an airtight case using very specific words with specific meanings.

This sounds like analytic philosophy, rather than continental philosophy. Besides, there's always been freaks who want to logic their way around everything, with varying degrees of success. Spinoza, one of my favorite philosophers, tried to do philosophy following the format/method of geometric proofs in the 16th century.