I think focusing on modern philosophy is a bad idea
I'm replying but not really. Simply putting my thoughts out there.
Modern philosophers have their pros and their cons. On the one hand, modern philosophers have emphasized the importance of animal and human rights in our society.
However, focusing entirely (or mostly) on modern philosophers as a point of study or reference is a bad idea. It's one thing to say philosophy is important and its another to only emphasize modern philosophers because you aren't painting the full picture of what philosophy actually is when you do.
Sure, we can get into the weeds with classifications and categories of philosophical thought, but the giants are giants for a reason. They shaped Western civilization through moral reasoning and deep thought. The ethical foundations of the West were heavily influenced by Christian morals, which themselves were shaped in part by great philosophers like Aristotle and Augustine, as well as by Greco-Roman culture and law.
Socrates, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius all have their place in philosophy for a reason. They all taught the importance of practicing internal value outside of wealth, rational and moral thinking, and virtue. These are all necessary for a good life.
People love to hate on the west. But the west was made by those very same ideas that I am defending right now. Principles such as individual rights, rule of law, freedom of thought, and scientific inquiry all stem from great thinkers that influenced Western civilization. Sure, Western Civilization may not be perfect, but its emphasis on reason, debate, and universal ethics has produced societies where knowledge, creativity, and human flourishing can thrive.
Modern philosophers often prioritize ideology over the pursuit of truth, or at least over seeing the full picture. W. E. B. Du Bois, is probably not a philosopher. He focuses entirely on systemic racism, treating it as the central lens for understanding society. In his work, race becomes the driving factor behind class, economics, and social hierarchy. Shaping the way he interprets historical and contemporary issues.
This is of course, all rooted in Marxism. However, this is purely a Western viewpoint,and it only focuses on inequality.
Can that really be considered philosophy? His modern take can only be applied in the modern Western context. There is no universal rule to his philosophical theories.
There is also the issue of over subjectiveness. Modern philosophers such as Judith Butler may over emphasize everything as being subjective rather than objective. What is real is real, no matter how many times we circle around the issue and reframe it.
I wouldnt even mention Marx as a philosopher. If you can call that trashcan of a man a philosopher, then so is Ben eyebrows Shapiro.
At the end of the day, philosophy is about truth, reason, and virtue. It is not ideology, subjectivity, and it is not inherently political.
Modern thinkers may offer perspectives, but when they prioritize race, identity, or Marxist frameworks above universal principles, they drift away from real philosophy and become simple commentators.
If ideas aren’t grounded in reason and applicable beyond a narrow context, that's not philosophy, it's just opinions and ideology dressed up as theory.
The lessons of the classical giants remain timeless for a reason.