Well said. In addition, I would point out that ‘Philosophy’ translates as ‘the love of wisdom.’ I do not doubt that the vast majority of Philosophers throughout history would view The Secret for nothing more than the hyperbolic tripe it is and have no problem declaiming it as such.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Philosophers throughout history would view any philosophy that deviated from their own in an even slightly discernable way as nothing more than hyperbolic tripe and have no problem declaiming them as such. 
Oh, absolutely. I’m not claiming otherwise. OTOH, there were and are a lot of pretenders to the crown. Every age has them. For every philosopher with the insight of Sartre there are half a dozen self promoting morons like Lacan. Lacan’s pseudo science does not detract from Sartre’s observations on Existentialism any more than Byrne’s trite psychobabble detracts from Dennett’s incisive theories about consciousness.
It’s entertainment, dudes, and a whole lot better than the boob-tube.
Dennett, yes. Interesting stuff. Sartre? Dried up Velveeta.
Pistols at dawn!
Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism is seminal.
They (most of them) kept their jeremiads confined to the marketplace, where there was a ready audience for bullshit.
Yoga.
It is quite possibly the best habit you could acquire.
Historically, Philosophers have acted to destabilize the conceptual foundations of their respective eras. (Understand “era” in spatial as well as temporal terms.) On some occasions, this has had the positive effect of enabling their respective societies–or anyway, at least, some of the people around them–to make progress in the face of challenges.
I call the practice of Philosophy a kind of conceptual thrillseeking, and I see it as valuable for many of the same reasons thrillseeking is valuable.
Film at 11.
I draw my weapon, sir!
Existentialism is a philosophical blight that has all but deadened the enlightenment of man.
AARRRGH! You’re conflating Existentialism with Postmodernism! No, no, no, no, NO! Existentialism is a necessary movement to explain the human existence, whereas Postmodernism is megalomaniacal wanking.
There are a lot of different ways to be a philosopher.
One example that (ostensibly) benefited mankind is Hammurabi- he established the first known code of laws. Try and plow through that and you’ll notice that obviously times have changed. Still, the idea of a code of laws caught on, and it is hard to imagine what a non-primitive society would look like without one.
What kind of jobs would these various philosophers get today? Tough call. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, so maybe he’d be involved with the military. I can picture Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as attempted rock stars or maybe just local nutjobs.
It is kind of a limited view of philosophy I think. Any really educated person (except MBA’s) today becomes a philosopher (they don’t call a PhD ‘Doctor of Philosophy’ for nothing), though people don’t generally view it in those terms. Every doctor, lawyer and judge is arguably a philosopher. Arguably every scientist, politician and preacher too. You could include game-show hosts and fad diet authors, Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, Ghandi, MLK, Thomas Edison, Einstein… I hope this at least helps answer your question.
How did people at the time view philosophers? I think it varied quite a bit. Some were popular, some were treated like cranks. Guys like Socrates made a big splash and attracted a lot of attention, then eventually pissed off enough people that the society turned on them and had them killed.
Good idea - kill 'em all and let 'em sort out god! 
I, of course, differ. Existentialism is the only truly grown-up philosophical school, the one that expects its adherents to act like adults and take real ownership of themselves and their actions. What’s more enlightened than that?
I suspect Liberal’s main objection to Existentialism lies in the fact that so many Existentialists tend toward atheism.
I’ve nothing to add; I just want to give this line the applause it is due.
These initiatives did little more than legitimize a post-civil war political order. They were well-constructed propaganda. The fact that they existed should not cause one to conclude that society was somehow debauched before their propagation.
Well you know more about it than I do. Generally Bachannals and orgies are what I have heard was the common state of things. Also Caesar and Antony’s methods of dealing with a Senate who they didn’t agree with was pretty corrupt. My specifics are likely off but I think you are making a mistake here. How would it solidify a post civil war order if it did not address the reasons for the disorder? You wouldn’t for instance consider the Consul breeding with a foreign Queen, and then the Consul that succeeds him having an affair with that same Queen, debauchery? Particularly when it was part of the root cause of said civil war?
New thread.
In short, you are using the Augustan narrative to justify the reforms, just as he did. Augustus destroyed the Roman state. Romans had spent the previous generation living under brutal despots who at least clung to the formalities and basic organization of the Republic. Augustus, having dismantled that almost completely, needed to look elsewhere for his political legitimacy. An empire simply was not possible under the existing Roman constitution. So he created a new one and rooted Roman imperial authority in the supposed restoration of virtue, the decline of which virtue Romans had been complaining about since the beginning of recorded Roman history.
You can read this in the Aeneid, in Horace, in Sallust, in Livy, and even later in Tactitus. Augustus’ moral program was intended to redefine his brutal past and transform him into the “prince of peace” and the defender of good old Roman values.
He was very, very good at this.
Well then that supports my thesis that Augustus as a philosopher was able to influence the Roman state and thus impact the common people.