Why learn algorithms when you could eventually invent a hash table?

I don't know if every brain can come to the realization that its inherently limited in what it can perceive of truth, especially since these limitations themselves are obscured from us.

You think you could?

Anyway, the work of others is a good way to get higher-level concepts into your head to toy around with.

Let's just grant you would come to the same conclusions eventually — people that specialised in thinking about metaphysics, ethics, epistemology etc. and spent years writing their arguments in (to a first approximation) well-reasoned prose, which was then subjected to the critiques of their colleagues that followed in subsequent generations who instead wrote their own arguments.. at the very least seems like a huge time saver.

I suppose ultimately you should read philosophy if you find it interesting. I like talking about philosophy, but find it hard to talk with people who have formally studied it, because they often rigidly cling to sets of ideas that get attached to the people who came up with them, rather than thinking more freely.

I often think it's a little unfair that history and knowledge are (obviously) biased towards people who thought enough of themselves to write their thoughts down.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who could make strong claims on the invention of certain thoughts or theories, but the bar happened to be too noisy for anyone to hear them.

Famous philosophers spend their whole lives to end up with a few unique conclusions. Do you believe you could come to the same conclusions as every single philosopher combined, in one lifetime?

I don't think that's a stupid question.

It's useful to read philosophy as we're exposed to the thought process of that specific author/philosopher. A lot of times, the conclusion you arrive at is influenced heavily by the lens through which you view the presuppositions.

It's useful to be exposed to different viewpoints and conclusions. You often read something that gives you pause, and you think, "I never thought of it that way."

I think this is akin to asking "why study computer science when you can just think it up yourself". The answer being you won't even have anywhere to start and you certainly will write bad software if someone did give you a computer to type away on. The field of computer science is much younger and smaller than philosophy.

Why stand on the ground when there are a multitude of giant's shoulders to stand on?

Philosophy is a good tool to find very poetic and often quite succinct descriptions of what you might otherwise come to on your own. It also provides a shared language among people, although often at the expense of inclusivity

It's like anything else. If you're interested in the subject matter, the most productive is a combination of the two.

Also analytical philosophy is the direct precursor to computer science and a huge influence on math as we know it.

You should try reading it, then, to see if it will be of any value to you.

You gain intellectual efficiency.