So a lot of you folks read Plato, Aristotle, some of you even the Pre-Socratics.
I find this bewildering, surely, atleast with the Pre-Socrates and definitely with a good chunk of the arguments put forth by Plato and Aristotle, you can't actually find them agreeable? (just picking some common examples by the way) It seems many folks who read these works are more interested in getting an idea of how a certain thought developed as opposed to finding thoughts they disagree and agree with and establishing why.
Wouldn't you folks find it more interesting to read philosophers whose thoughts make you think, "I can't seem to deny this, wait let me try, no, shit, I can't". In so far as those philosophers are concerned, Philosophers of Language and Logicians seems far more worth reading.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who read philosophers not commonly characterized as PoLs and Logicians who find them agreeable too, but I can't help but think that a large chunk of people reading these philosophies, going through historically prominent authors, are waiting for it to "get good", or just reading to expand their knowledge of different systems of thought, trying decipher what X person was trying to say, without actually agreeing with what X person was trying to say (in which case I'd ask, isn't it boring to argue over what X person believed? Isn't questioning what you believe, given what X person said, more interesting? I've seen arguments that go to the tune of "Hey Nietzsche said Z" // "No, actually if you read A he said Y" // at which point I'd much prefer the argument going along the lines of "Okay, let's assume he said Y, now the reason I wouldn't agree with Y either is..." // but I usually find people arguing along the lines of "No he did not say Y, if you read B he said...")
And it just so happens that Philosophers of Language and Logicians use more rigid analysis in so far as they try very hard to firmly establish something, be it with the use of Quantified Logic or whatever, say Frege for example started of by pointing to undeniable difference between the statements a=a and a=b with the rest of his paper focusing on how this difference arose.
The more phenomenological kind of authors have a much more limited audience in so far as not as many people would not find their starting points agreeabale, in so far as you are the kind of person that does find them convincing, I can imagine you having fun reading these authors, but given that I feel a lot of persons don't actually have any opinion on whether the author said something correct or incorrect, I don't see how that's any fun.
TL;DR: @people who read philosophies they don't agree with, why do you bother?