I think the quote doesn't say what you think it says. Wittgenstein loved philosophy, and it's frustrating when people cherry pick his work to try and dunk on the entire field.
And if you accept that you are telling on yourself, then don't you think it's awfully convenient that your perspective on philosophy as a discipline is a little skewed by personal hangups?
It is my understanding that early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus was mostly critical of logical positivism as opposed to philosophy as a whole, and that late Wittgenstein of the Investigations embraced philosophical inquiry, only abandoning the idea of language as a precise tool (and in fact embracing it).
I have heard that Kierkegaard was one of his favorite philosophers, which challenges the idea that people seem to have of Wittgenstein as a precise purely logical thinker who disdained ambiguity.
In my experience, it's the opposite. People who become dependent on AI agents are avoiding human contact, and people who become managers are seeking it out (for better or worse).
That argument only works for half of my comment. I argued that people conflate the novel with the legacy, but I would also argue that people conflate the legacy with the novel. People are just as likely to see something very old and say "wow, we are the first people to think of this."
The real culprit is the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever is good must be natural and whatever is bad must be some aberration. It's more complicated than that but I think that explains 75% of it.
How do you know that? From the way you're talking about "taverns" and "elders" it sounds like you've read a lot of fantasy books and not a lot of history. You're projecting an invented past for polemical reasons, because you have no evidence either way.
Sorry to come at you so hard, but I see this behavior so commonly and it drives me nuts. I sometimes suspect that if you polled people on what aspects of contemporary society were novel and which were not, most people would have a less than 50% hit rate. Because what drives the categorization is ideology.
I have both a Windows and a Mac. What triggers me isn't people insulting Apple products, but immature, gaming-forum ass, console warring. People need to grow up.
Are you sure this is a permanent fact about you and not something that would change if it became habitual?
I mean, I have no way of knowing if it's the former or the latter. But I've been noticing recently when people treat their traits as changeable and when they treat them as core to their being. I don't really have any faith that, in most cases, one can differentiate the two as much as one thinks one can.
And of course there's Death of Stalin where everybody just uses either their own accent or they're Jason Isaacs who went for over the top Yorkshire.
I love creative accent work in movies. I recently watched Pride and Prejudice, and Donald Sutherland clearly isn't doing an English accent but it works somehow.
I don't know why people are so confused about where the Romans are. There is a guy named Harun Osman Osmanoğlu and he's the current Caesar of Rome. It's pretty simple.
Not in the underrated movie The Eagle! In that one, the soldier from the world's dominant global empire has an American accent, and the actual Briton slave has a British accent.
If I believe the concept to be rotten to its core, why would I care that this particular study got some detail wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, you are wrong that INTJs are like XYZ, according to the original MBTI test, they are like ZYX."
Actually, there is something to the comparison between the political compass and the MBTI.
The political compass is terrible, full stop. It is a meme in the classic sense. It has colonized some people's view on what politics in direct proportion to how stupid it is (stupid is simple and simple is viral).