I'm not sure I agree with this. A senior academic is usually very familiar with the canon. You don't think you will be vaporised if there is no underlying logic and saliency to the arguments in the work you present?

The objections that one treatise makes to another will typically be of type violation, category mistake, nonsense - which is typical of compilers. I don't need to tell you which discipline invented the ideas of type and type error and was even largely organized around them in early and mid- 20th c, even across wildly different theoretical views.

Yes precisely. In my eyes the lack of objective answers in much of philosophy makes it an easy target for humans getting lost in their own "rationality". People vastly overestimate their ability to reason and draw conclusions about abstract concepts that really lack strong definitions.

Some philosophy study is very good for raising the questions one should always ponder in life, but building a career on philosophy very easily leads you astray.

I have studied philosophy, literature and physics. In literature you know everything is made up, that is the point of literature, creating art, but in philosophy many people make up things and then pretend they are real. Objective ethics? Postulating the nature of reality? Please.

> Philosophy treatises don’t trigger compiler errors

Compiler errors make programming easier, not harder. They are firm, clear rules about how something needs to be in order to work

Philosophy has no such constraints or automated checks, it's harder