Is Philosophy Useless?

‘Reserving judgement is as good as having no opinion.’ - Madam Herta

‘If the truth shall kill them, let them die.’ - Immanuel Kant

Two philosophers sit in an awkward silence glancing at each other with resentment, but not towards each other, but rather human nature. They know that they can elevate each other so much with their expertise and beyond if they each provide constructive criticism to the other, offer advice or warnings, so long as the other receives it. Yet they don't do any of that as they both know it is human nature to be repelled by any form of criticism, critique, or complaint, and therefore it is futile to try.
They both recall the last time they did try, and the response they received. ‘How dare you be more clever than me! Show off! Know it all! Oh you're just tryna help? Well you can help by adding onto MY point! Not saying a counter point. That is the true purpose of rationality, to prove I’M right, no matter what!’ Yea, perhaps, never again...

‘You all think my jokes are not funny? Laugh!!!!!!’
‘HAHAHAHHA… Ha… Hahah… Ha…’
‘That's more like it!’
‘My liege, I don't understand why you force them to laugh? Wouldn't it be more authentic if you, well, refined your comedic talents?’
‘Listen, who actually cares about authenticity? Sure, my subjects resent me, but their fear of me and their dependency on me is so vast that their resentment is negligible. If I weren't in such a good mood, I would have you executed for such a brazen comment… On second thought, guards!’
And thus, we will never know whether the subjects really found the jokes funny or not. Not that that matters anyway.

Intellect is a game of thinking. Humans naively pick out pretty rocks from a sandy beach and claim to have grasped the truth of the world. This so-called "mansion of knowledge" is nothing more than scattered building blocks that outsiders can stack as they please.
You once saw a shameless scholar who used money to pay off any voices that would refute the findings of his research, such that he became a prophet in the eyes of the people. His falsified materials slowed scientific research by three Amber Eras. You also once witnessed a true genius whose thinking preceded his time, and his great cure for incurable diseases destroyed the careers of thousands of interstellar medical practitioners. He was therefore regarded by these doctors as a lunatic and committed to an asylum.
If that is the case, why can't you be the person to hold the building blocks? Knowledge is no more than an illusion. As long as people believe, even a worm can win debates against the stellar gods.

Heroes often have the luxury of being ethically illiterate and inept. They adopt what is conventionally good and never need to question what is really good or bad. Villains on the other hand, they do. They think things through and question what they're doing cus the stakes are higher for them. Sometimes they twist the truth just to make themselves seem virtuous when in reality they're not. But it could be argued that that's at least better than never questioning ethics to begin with. Ironically, ethics will never evolve without villains.
If I’m so stupid, why don’t you prove that I’m incorrect. If I’m so evil, why don’t you prove that what I’m doing is wrong.
Philosophers are just sick fucking people. They shouldn’t have the right to speak. They should just fucking die! Ugh, but they have wisdom. They’re cool if you can safely extract it.
Sometimes I do feel like unquestioningly following conventional morals and being a sheep, just for a day or a week. But I know I will regret it afterwards.

Two fools are debating a problem. A genius overhears the commotion, and decides to take time out of their busy schedule to step in and enlighten them to the truth and the solution to the problem, with flawless logic, and flawless knowledge. The two fools must now follow in the footsteps of the genius; take the solution and implement it. But they don't, as that is quite difficult after all. So they find another problem to squabble about. The genius, again, comes in and offers the solution. And again, the two fools find another problem to fight over. This process repeats until the solution to all problems has been enlightened to the fools. Will the fools finally use the truth to take action? Or will they actually regress their knowledge and intellect, pretend they never heard what the genius said, just so to continue arguing? The only thing the two fools can agree on however, is that genius is such a killjoy.

Clearly, philosophy isn't perfect. So what can we do about it?

The rationale so far. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EMqdv32V7PeUETjq6r8mzsVyXskuQBYoJIv4e-EDtm8/edit?usp=sharing