Just because you can prove mathematically that most link chains "end" at "philosophy" doesn't mean that's the end you should end up at. I spend at least 2 nights a week just reading links through wikipedia as I'm falling asleep, and I almost inevitably end up at languages and cultures or historical events that I knew little about. Philosophy isn't an end, and it's pretty meaningless without some stone cold knowledge about the world. Or you could say it comes as a result of knowledge, not before it.
philosophy helps to "compress" more knowledge about the world into "less" knowledge by shifting quantity of data into difficulty from advanced conceptual abstractions
Nothing ends at philosophy. They reach there, but they can reach lots of different places. Without scrolling on philosophy I can see more than 50 other links from that page that are thus reachable from anywhere by at most one more step.
Pick a random thing and see if it is reachable from anywhere. A lot of them are. I suspect most are, but I don't know how to run this study (other than a brute force algorithm that will use more compute than I would want to dedicate)
I think you’d be interested in Tolstoy’s view of “Philosophy”, which he expresses in “Confession / What I Believe”.
Basically that the reason why philosophy is cold and meaningless is because it tries to separate itself from the source of meaning, which is intrinsically subjective and physical and spiritual.
Philosophy’s logical conclusions are relativism and nihilism (or at least they were in Tolstoy’s time? I’m not a philosopher), because they try to understand the world with a pretext that denies its vitality.
Common folk / common sense frown on these forms of philosophy, because they miss the point in a sense; they don’t actually tell you how to live in a moral way. Tolstoy thought intellectuals grossly underrated the perspective of folk wisdom in that way. We’ve made some progress in that department, since his time, but it’s still largely true today.
> Philosophy’s logical conclusions are relativism and nihilism
Some philosophers, notably Jacobi [1], have argued this (he is credited with popularizing the term nihilism). He was arguing against enlightenment thinkers, especially Spinoza and Kant (and the rest of German Idealism). But one philosopher's conjecture isn't equal in any sense to some unequivocal stance of "Philosophy". It is worth noting, that he was arguing for "Faith" instead of speculative reason, so maybe not what you would think.
So your point is true in a very limited sense. Some philosophers have argued against some particular philosophies by suggesting that the particular philosophy they are criticizing is likely to lead to relativism and nihilism.
