I think calling dillentantism is lazy. But I think some of the connections made are needless, the conclusions drawn have no bearing on either method of maths, or meta maths.

But maybe I need to do a second reading. More to come on this, then.

If only we had a look-into-the-future-Kalman-filter-driven-relative-value 60 billion dollar hedge fund to profit off it, life would be merrier

Marx, Engels and Kropotkin manage to rouse you in this way.
I am suspicious of the "down to earth" explanation of the reasons behind revolutions, I don't see the outcome of revolution as a certainty. However, one is still compelled by gleaming materialism.

A brilliant example is Susan Vishvanath's "Something Barely Remembered" which I just finished

I follow you here yes. Care to say more?

I don't necessarily see this as a critique of philosophy.
Although I will say, logic is something you are overlooking here. Formal epistemology too, is "useful" in a sense.

Am I missing something? (Read this in a non adversarial tone)

Perhaps the Darwin-Hobbesian epistemology is tinged by the methodological pessimism of history, with its focus on war

Most my philosophical thoughts on symmetry and fractality, comes from "Branches" by Michel Serres

Just finished "I want to be a mathematician" by Halmos, and moving on to his NST. Currently on his "Algebraic Logic" book as well

Hey! I have actually seen, but not read this book before. I'm all for metamathematics reading, where the "meta" means "about", rather than meaning "a priori", in the sense of logic.

The fact that Brentano sits at the genealogical head of both phenomenology and the Lvov-Warsaw school is very interesting to me