The problem with chat gpt at the moment is that if you reformulate the response, it'll say something opposite.

And this is why knowledge and ideas are something that goes with the flow of time, what I just said earlier would've killed me 3 centuries ago, but there were men at the time who would consequentially build these ideas, people who left us something else than scholastic and nominalism, not entirely sure what you mean by critical in this context, as a mere foreigner, but if you're saying that it is not the preferred theory amongst the population is absolutely unquestionable, but the literature on the question is not that simple, since it was indeed an importance subject of phenomenology, which is certainly modern, but not contemporary.

I kindly disagree with the statement that the paradigm's order we go after because we were blessed with reason is something we don't follow for our own personal gain, therefore, if it could be said to be objective, we do not have a grasp on it. Aristotle's dialectic has a great example for it with the paint as a false representation of the truth (not going through the whole experimentation, because it's long), meaning that what we find and think of objective is a possible fallacy, and we have no possibility to acknowledge it besides theorizing it, there's a complete and vast differential between what we see, and what's to be seen, and that is not a recent thought, Spinoza talked a lot about it in his Ethics around his idea of god.

(And please, refrain from making assumptions of what I believe or state as evident, since neither I or you knows a pinch of what is obviously accurate in this world, in this particular matter)

But it's shared by whose standard ? It's pure conjecture, we see others basically as mere different versions of ourselves, and it works for the most part, but what if it doesn't and you're actually wrong ? Suddenly you get into the reality, people are having lots of problems communicating precisely because their life experiences are divergent enough to make it difficult to comprehend, let alone getting a chance to build on it with another individual. Fortunately no one is that different, we have a lot in common thanks to our cultures, but what if we were living in caves, would it be so easy ? Thinking of allegory of the cave, if you were the one to leave, assuming they don't kill you when you come back, do you think they would understand what makes you happy ?

Therefore, we can guess, and it's fine, it's doing the job, but that's where it stops, we make lots of guesses based on our own experience, objectively we are reflecting our own self, I can never get into your head to actually get a sensible feeling of what you really think, I would just mimic it and pray for the best, it's not exactly the same thing.

My knowledge about others in general is not that impressive, but Sartre, Heidegger, or even Locke have lots of deep thought around this idea that we can't do more than reflecting ourselves into the other, it's our only way to communicate, mimicking each others.

As to know if a good philosophy is something that convey into the masses, well I don't have the capacity to judge it, but it sounds foolish to me, philosophy is not a competition, it's about substance, not acceptance, the quality of your ideas are not measurable by the amount of people who read you, otherwise, people like...I can't come with an American name, so let's throw a A.Soral –a french one notoriously known for being dog shit– who sells lots of book would be a better philosopher than say Schopenhauer who couldn't sell any of his work during his lifetime, it'd be foolish nonetheless. Although, I might've misunderstood your sentence, so I'll also build a bit around both ideas; To me, I've said this in another comment here, philosophy is mostly accurate because of mimetism, someone really smart (start with Aristotle) begin to think about the world, and gather people with the same purpose around him, and then suddenly, he (Platon) starts to write and describe his own view of the world, the next person smart enough to get into the work build his own ideas using the previous work as a fundamental, to better contradict it, and then it goes on ad vitam eternam, so concomitantly, most ideas are build bricks by bricks to suit our reality, philosophy is not something such as "this one is bad, but this author is fantastic", every piece of work is interconnected, there's no philosophy unworthy or absolutely false (as long as you deem it worth reading), any and every ideas will be used to enhance further our comprehension of our surrounding, hence when we use "philosophy", we don't think of an individual theory, we use them all, whereas if we dig into it further down, every individual has its own philosophy into a gigantic dialogism that we confront with each others every day of our lives to prevent ourselves from alienation.

In writing on my phone, it's hard not to lose focus writing posts like this, so excuse me of my possibly inaccurate topic.

that's because philosophy is a conversation, a dialogism, you don't interpret the world by yourself, you talk with others and come up with a conclusion that suits your vision best, and then once it's done, someone of your acabit will have a look into your work and build his own idea of the world based on yours, and try to overcome the initial postulate by reusing some arguments to better contradicting the others.

You can't understand anything in philosophy if you don't oppose ideas between connected peoples. For example, I'm french so I'll use this philosopher: You can't properly understand Descartes, if you don't read Montaigne, because the latter describes a world that Descartes reus afterward, and following this, if you really want to comprehend his work, you'd have to read D. Hume, because he's the actual direct opposition to rationalism in a direct response to R. Descartes, so reading him allows 2 things : being able to follow the flow of ideas and build a mindset that allows you to have an actual grasp to philosophy in the regard of the chronology, and secondly, it makes you able to come back better to understand what their predecessor thought, because these people had an interpretation on it that is probably the most accurate you'll get.

It's also why philosophy is easy to get into, and very hard to dig in deeper. It's easier to focus on one author and using it as a referential, than intercrossing them juxtaposingly and developping an actual "philosophical identity" that is essentially yours.

more than a contradiction, it's a litteral oxymoron, a disinterested pursuit makes absolutely no sense at all, since pursuing something objectively means "going after", you don't chase something you can't fathom axiomatically. It's like chasing happiness, but what is happiness ? I know what it is in my own perception of the world, but what is it in yours, I don't know, I couldn't chase your happiness, because I have no ideas what makes you happy, this would particularily work well in a relationship, often disinterested love isn't that selfless, by making others happy, you make yourself happy.

To my idea of it, there's never such things as "disinterested X", and especially not something you're not even having a grasp on, it's a funny idea to think about, but in the actual world, it's not a contradiciton, it's an unattainability, it's absolutely unfeasable to reach that level of awareness to the point where you could start chasing something you have no knowledge of, otherwise philosophy would definitely be the most scientific and proeminent production, you'd be the emphasis of an anima mundi if you could do that in any degrees.

(I just wanted to talk about the first sentence, because I found it quite intriguing, even though it's not necessarily the idea you were developping within your argument)

Purely sentients being couldn't be considered alive unless they find a way to connect with the physical world and with the same intricacies. But for a robot capable of awareness and interacting with people, wouldn't it check both fundamentals to be alive ? Having a functional corpse, having a functional mind.

To me a program becomes sentient the moment it starts being truly aware of its surrounding (and not because you told him what to be aware of), so far, I think the best we do is deep learning, and this is still far from being adequate to be called alive, we're still just scratchings the learning processes.

Shortly: an A.I could be alive if it checks all the prerequisites, and would be alive for sure if it checks all the possible criteria within a classification (not sure if there's one for life, but I was thinking of language with the classification of Hockett as an example.)

Non sense, you're comparing something having physical effects and physically existing with a metaphysical concept.

You're like making a comparison of two things that are fundamentally different. I get the idea that they could be seen as similar per se, but let's not get carried away, viruses are something you can interact with, whether it be alive or not, there's still a reasonable doubt, whereas even if you ended up saying they are living things, there would still be no doubts about metaphysical concepts being alive.