Then again, maybe much of it really is bs.

Would a spiritual absolute be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, or an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell? This father figure lawgiver might be a useful social device for a constantly regenerating population, but you would think the philosophers could have pointed out an ideal is not an absolute, as when people assume their ideals to be absolute, it does motivate some pretty self righteous attitudes.

Is money a social contract, enabling mass societies, or a commodity to mine from them? The philosophers could have chewed that one over a little bit more, not just muttered on about supply and demand.

Is time the point of the present moving past to future, or it that just an artifact of our being mobile organisms, necessitating this sequential process of perception and it's really just change, turning future to past?

In which case, time is not a dimension, but an effect, like temperature, pressure, color and sound. Time is frequency, events are amplitude.

Yet somehow our brightest minds assume it to be geometry.

We are clueless and so are our philosophers.