Well, most OOP isn't object oriented at all, it's class oriented or maybe another way to look at it is that most of the time OOP is used as containers for data and function, not for things.

For example, say you have an object that holds some strings and numbers and it has getters and setters on it. How is that different than a Hash? Is that object oriented? If you add a couple helper methods to said object is it more OOP if you still are using getters and setters?

There is a fundamental difference between treating OOP as a bunch of classes that contain basically procedural code vs treating them as objects that are things that do things.

Treated the way it often is, OOP is not that useful for anything other than namespacing and creating ridiculous hierarchy structures just because "it's oop" and inheritance lets humans do what they love to do - name and categorize things.

If you treat objects in OOP as "things", I think it is more useful and interesting than treating objects as containers. Either way, not all code needs to be OOP at all.