As for God - nearly everyone means the celestial bogey-man, the chief cop, on the one hand, or executive in charge of suffering, on the other. Interesting fact: the name ‘Jupiter’ is descended from an indo-European compound name ‘dyaus-pitar’ meaning literally ‘Sky Father’. That is what nearly everyone, believer and atheist alike, takes ‘God’ to mean. I’ve never believed in such a god - yet I’m not atheist.

Then there is the distinction between philosophy and philosophyOf(X), with X being mathematics, science, religion, or any other possibly domain-specific choice. The classics are usually philosophyOf(X) with X=philosophy itself. They are not necessarily the most interesting part of philosophy. Domain-specific philosophy often ends up being more interesting than ... meta-philosophy. — alcontali

Perhaps. But your post exhibits the fundamental importance of 'metaphilosophy' insofar as it's presupposed in general (re: topics) and/or in particular (re: criteria-distinctions & methods) by each "domain-specific" philosophy (e.g. of mathematics, etc).

Interesting fact: the name ‘Jupiter’ is descended from an indo-European compound name ‘dyaus-pitar’ meaning literally ‘Sky Father’. — Wayfarer

Are you sure?

JUPITER - From Latin Iuppiter, which was ultimately derived from the Indo-European *Dyeu-pater, composed of the elements Dyeus (see ZEUS) and pater "father". Jupiter was the supreme god in Roman mythology. He presided over the heavens and light, and was responsible for the protection and laws of the Roman state.

ZEUS - The name of a Greek god, related to the old Indo-European god *Dyeus, from a root meaning "shine" or "sky".

https://www.behindthename.com/name/jupiter

That's a stretch.

Everything and nothing. I feel like, after years of independent research or whatever, I just don't really agree with anything anymore. I have some vague inclinations towards Deleuze and Sartre, whom seem to be somewhat mutually incompatible, recently developed interests, which I admittedly haven't really investigated, in Nominalism, Neutral Monism, Zen Buddhism, embodied consciousness, and, apparently, The Absolute, though, have never liked Hegel, and am hoping that this concept is in Totality and Infinity. All that I have is a disjointed assemblage of theories that doesn't really seem to add up to anything at all. You'd think that philosophers would have a lot of good life advice, but the only thing that I think that I've gotten from anyone really is the kind of humility exemplified by Socrates. Albert Einstein once said that "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know", but he wasn't even a philosopher.

Ethics, hmm.

It has taught me to not believe everything until it's my truth which then isn't a philosophy anymore. My belief is that it shouldn't consume you, if it's not fun anymore then I just stop pondering untill If and when I would like to continue. I'm loving this forum though, and everyone's thoughts. It's a nice escape while I'm under lock down.

That being combative about it (or any topic for that matter) just gives everyone involved headaches. To be able to tell when someone wants to have a discussion and when they just want to fight with words. But most importantly not to worship ideas/ not to take it too seriously and to always be willing to change your mind.