Philosophers should stand behind unquestionable principles.

Dedication to limitless skepticism drives people to religion and unreason.

There’s a fundamental problem of form that philosophy struggles with. In order to focus on the search and understand what is truly right, wrong, true and just it must remain critical and skeptical of all concepts and ideas it comes across. But that creates a fundamental paradox. In order to remain fundamentally skeptical at all times one must consider all conclusions, no matter how valid, open to question. That alone precludes any sort of existential calm or resolution. So, this is the fucking thing: Even though we are the experts and have spent the time over thousands of years to investigate what’s good and true, what produces human flourishing as well as what detracts from it….we’ve progressed the foundations of justice and made clear and crystalline all that is foundational and necessary…..but we always remain open minded to other (non-optimum) ways of thinking and leave the possibility of questioning open on our deepest affirmations. Why?

It seems to me this insistence on limitless skepticism might be reactive. Philosophers might be reacting to religion because they don’t want to create another religion. Philosophy distinguishes itself FROM religion by remaining open minded and questioning. This has absolutely been foundational for the advancement of science and philosophy…..but…. what it has NOT done is provide existential resolution. Absolutely not everything can be known and, in this sense, if we are reasonable, we have no choice but to be alienated in the final answer by reality itself, but, the hole that philosophy leaves is much more than that. In the end, it doesn’t even leave room for reality itself. Some will say there are plenty of philosophies that hold objective reality as central. But, you alluded to it right in that claim. Those “philosophies” are particular instances within a field of particular instances. How is a universal reality supposed to be represented with this principally faceted gem philosophy has built. Reality could only exist in its a priori determinism in this format as a fragmented lensed effect filtered through a reaction developed to distinguish a framework separate from religion.

Religion hands out resolution like kid’s candy. Absolutely no requirement, or critical thought. Just take this name, you’re one of us, and figure it out later. That provides resolution, which humans so desperately need, but no substantive foundation. Religions just need to make clear what it is to be just, right, true. More or less, it gives an end and lets the local culture hash out the details. This formula can’t work in places with high instances of plurality. Also, we have some rethinking to do in the age of universal mass communication.

So, concluding, philosophers shouldn’t be precluding themselves from putting forward unquestionable universal principles because philosophers are basically the trained experts that should be doing so. Philosophers, you can write narratives just the way the religions of history have done. Philosophers will focus on the right subjects like universal human rights, justice, truth and human flourishing as the goal and do better than the captured particularity of modern religion. The question has been begging, what universal principle would I put forward? Exactly that every individual is an end in themselves, and this is the foundation for emergent justice and the right for enforcement. Those who defy universality are criminals by this determined emergent ethic. Universality is unquestionable.