September 5th 2026
That's solid foundational question impregnable to a metaphysical end. (Which is performed surmiseably as philosophical). So, I shit you not to sweat it any futher. It's a good thesis, but the trajectory is a negation itself.
We ultimately are fallible and creatives such as myself. We all do it (philosophy) different.
It's the feable types that follow and try to exhibit how much smarter they are. (Not the matter itself.)
I come across plenty of zealots on www. I must equate it with something that'll work for myself, as I have found there are many a philosopher out there but few can pull rank. Further to this testimony, philosophy as I mentioned earlier should be rooted in metaphysics.
°○○•○•
Which is to say there are principles invloved in the price we ask questions, whereas the cost of the answers we pose shouldn't have to be referenced. I am making a point about using unscientific means not to reproduce something already known (i.e. plagiarized) but to create what is originally made as something useful. I always aim to make what I say as useful has value.
There is, of course, interpretation involved.
My point is to master language and logic itself. My arguement rests where empiricism ends. What acts empirically should only be a philosopher who acts with ¹ convcition ² vision ³ courage.
Marco
•○●○•○○○••○°•○
How much of philosophy comes from the way the philosopher wants reality to be and how much is based on actuality? And what's better in the majority of situations: to seek foundational, ontological truths or tangible, experiential epistemic truths?
As I age, I find the latter more helpful, I'm just wary of self deception.





























