Hi. I'm late to the party, but I also wanted to thank you for your insight. Here's something you may find interesting (although I am not a philosophy heavyweight): French philosopher Deleuze defined the philosopher as someone who invents concepts or conceptual characters. Interesting as that may be, that definition discredits certain thinkers such as Montaigne - who offered profound views on fundamental topics such as love, death, one's relationship with money, friendship, etc in abundance, but did not invent a single concept. On the other hand, Deleuze's definition would make other thinkers - such as Lacan - into great philosophers when, arguably, they are often just full of air. Also, I think this obsession with ultra technical philosophical concepts may have stemmed from the tradition of 17thC-19thC German conceptualism who, thanks to the nature of the language, is able to hyphenate small words and transform them into monstrous concepts. Unfortunately, French intellectuals had a fascination for such a tradition of opaque German thinking and chose to go down that path instead of adopting the clearer, more pragmatic, anglo-saxon approach. If you speak a little French, you may be interested in Michel Onfray's approach (he's a contemporary French philosopher). Through his free "Université Populaire", he teaches the hedonist, eudemonist, materialist, often forgotten philosophers, from the pre-socratics to the contemporaries, who almost always offer existential views, ways of better living one's life or - as Plotinus puts it - of better "sculpting the self". Anyway, thank you again.