[JohnnyB]

Look, I understand that my negative views on philosophy (particularly expressed in such a negative manner) may be a little polarizing. I'm ok with that because I'm not the stereotype corporate/government power nor the intellectual underling being portrayed. I'm ok with it because I've studied philosophy formally for years, I have a degree in it, and there was a time when I had considered becoming a prof in it as well. The practice of philosophy led me to a perspective that sees the vast majority of dedicated practice in the discipline to be little more than self-serving prattle (largely due to the nature of academic politics, but moresoe due to the tensions in analytic reasoning and the nature of language).

I think just about everyone would benefit from studying philosophy at some point, because it does require learning ways of reasoning and arguing that are helpful throughout life, but which can become paralyzing if taken too seriously. On the other hand, I've seen enough to believe that a lot of philosophy is the equivalent of intellectual masterbation, climbing the status ladder within an academic field, just trying to maintain standards for publishing frequency, and self-deluded belief in the pursuit of 'knowledge' that just isn't there for the reaping. Still, I wouldn't say that about all philosophers, and even if I could say that I wouldn't deny a person who loves philosophy all the pleasure they could get from indulging in it.

Anyways, I admit that my initial response was over the top. Perhaps it would have been better for me simply to make a comment along the lines that this prof's theory is perhaps an interesting anecdote that might be worthy of diverting a little attention in intelligent conversation over a pint before getting onto a good joke or something with a little more relevance to the type of poignant decisions that virtual or non-virtual humans both make. Maybe another table at the pub would find it worthy of a dissertation, but to me that's just silly.