Woah now. You would call discussion about the nature of existence pseduo-philosophical? Is that not the vast majority of philosophy? Who are we, where do we come from, what is our inherent nature...you'd say all those are pseudo-philosophical topics?
Well, I think that in my experience these discussions very quickly derail. There's no rigor to them; everyone has some weird angle on the topic and you end up with a mish-mash of opinions and half baked thoughts. Good points are mixed with bad points and the pace of conversation is often too quick to discern between the two. For example, watch a conversation between two normal people on the topic of government. Then follow it up with a conversation between two people who have studied philosophy & great writers like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Plato, etc. The quality of the discussion, the form of the discussion, everything will be different. And the nature of government is (I would assume) a much easier topic than the far more meta issue of "why are we here, what is existence, who created us". It's just hard to have a serious discussion about these things, I guess.
I think you've just had some bad experiences then. Don't throw it out the window just yet. So are you saying you appreciate when great philosophers discuss the nature of existence?
Well, yes, but it would be important for me that they maintain a certain degree of clarity in their discourse. I wouldn't like to see it degenerate into the aforementioned muck. That aside, I think the title "great philosopher" carries with it enough intellectual rigor & skillful rhetoric that I'd likely be satisfied.
Well then there you go, a discussion on the nature of existence can be more than pseudo-philosophy.