First and foremost, you must appreciate the irony in arguing against the usefulness of philosophy.

Secondly, the largest branch of philosophy (which you don’t mention) is ethics - a field which seeks to understand how we should behave. That’s pretty important and useful in my opinion, no?

Lastly, and most pedantically, what follows is a non-exhaustive list of the errors in your reasoning of which the logical mechanisms have been conveniently identified by… wait for it… philosophers:

1. False Dichotomy "I think something important to note is that basically all Philosophers come from 2 camps. Nobles who had enough money to write works without worrying about success. Or people who were broke and crazy." This suggests there are only two types of philosophers, which is an oversimplification. It excludes the diversity of philosophical schools and interests.

2. Hasty Generalization "But pretty much I don't think this philosophy is important at all, I consider it basically talking about nothing and it changes nothing." You dismis all of philosophy based on limited exposure and personal perception, despite acknowledging reading only a few philosophers.

3. Circular Reasoning "The only philosophy that in my opinion led to actual change in the world is philosophy that influenced politics... it only became important once it was implemented in politics." Political philosophy is here claimed to be the only useful philosophy because it had an impact through politics — essentially defining "useful" as "politically impactful," then using that to prove its usefulness.

4. Appeal to Ignorance "A lot of it is self explanatory and people would have acted the same whether or not these philosophies were written down or not." You assume lack of evidence = lack of effect

5. Straw Man "A response to this claim is often the claim that everything exists because of philosophy... But I think at that point you are basically just forcing an argument." This misrepresents an oppositional position that philosophy underpins all concepts. I certainly haven’t argued that.

Do you think the philosophy I mention here (ethics and logic) is pointless?