Philosophy has amply supplied us with tools and technology which can be deployed in a performance of composition such that their value as output can develop, describe, explain and interpret variable input domains within a knowledge graph. Take “what is it like to be a(n) X” by Nagel, coupled with Quine’s “to be is to be the value of a variable”. By simple substitution we derive “what is it like to be the value of a variable?” It’s a naive gesture, as if partaking at a fine dining restaurant and placing a salad fork in a rib eye. But is Nagel’s question even originally conceptually hygienic for any X? For some things it may seem as profound as uttering that “the sky has the blues”. What is the analytical value of such talk? Is it reducing hard-working philosophers’ corpus to quotations, half-baked paraphrases, etc.? Perhaps, one can only hope. Philosophers like comedians (Jerry Seinfield, at any rate), want people to be talking like them in how things are going. That’s really the testament of any philosopher’s true wealth: the frequency with which their conceptual machinery is presented in our contemporaries’ philosophical activity. There may be some value, assuming we can hold our own assumptive logic up to view such that ideological commitments eventually convey requirements of bare life prior to political criteria which would reductively divide being into overdetermined atoms.
Substitute with abandon, mileage may vary. Use a random phrase generator, try a Markov Chain Monte Carlo and scrape SEP blockquotes.