Philosophy as it remains today may include all those things you two mention.
Not philosophy today. Philosophy always did.
However, when a group is making a decision, I take a shortcut and use my experience with fellow men and decipher how they came to their decision. I do not really need to analyze it in terms of ethics, etc. as stated by great thinkers of old.
So in other words you don't actually think
about anything. You take intellectual shortcuts. That explains why you can't make a reasoned argument at least. You were never using any kind of reason in the first place. And no, that part wasn't condescention or snark. Simply a statement of truth.
I would also point out that (if what you say is accurate) you're essentially claiming to be sociopathic. You're claiming that you never consider morality or ethics in your decision making process and that you care nothing about right or wrong. Then there's all of the other terrible implications of what you said......
I may be using what you call philosophy,
What everyone calls philosophy.
but since I never paid much attention to it, I simply use the shortcut and life experience to jump to my own conclusions. Mainly because I do not see that anyone really cares how I got to it. I am just an annoying person to anyone who disagrees and also mostly boring to anyone already understands my point of view. Semantics.
So in other words everything about your opinions, ideas, and beliefs, are meaningless. You have no actual reason for believing them. You've never exposed them to any real thought. You certainly have no evidence aside from your "life experience" which is entirely subjective. For all intents and purposes you basically picked a few ideas at random and decided to form your reality around them.
As an example, you've mentioned a few times that you support human rights. The thing is, you really don't. You don't know what human rights are. You know what the words mean, but not what they actually are. The concept itself is beyond you. You can't describe why they're important, or why it's wrong for them to be taken away. Saying that you support human rights is basically just an empty statement, devoid of meaning to anyone. Including yourself.
Hearing you, I find it interesting that you earlier said that you discarded philosophy because it contained no information. Neither does your view. In fact you base your ideas on far less information than a philosopher does. I'm not sure that counts as ironicly hypocrital, or hypocritically ironic.
That's actually worse than a theist. A theist at least has reasons for why they believe something (usually weird and delusional ones, but at least they exist). As well as some sort of substance to their ideas. You've literally got nothing but your own desire to believe something.
I can debate mostly material things.
How do you plan to do that? You can't use logic to debate it (that would require philosophy). You can't use the scientific method (ditto). You can't use reason. I'm not even being sarcastic here. I really can't figure out how a person could even begin to debate without using philosophy. If you actually figure it out I'd honestly like to know.
I will however point out what Azdgari alluded to. "Material" and "Immaterial" are philosophical concepts.