What are the main problems of philosophy?

[Dubious]

Without firm epistemological or ontological grounding, the true status of anything, and everything, is up in the air.

For me the "epistemological or ontological grounding" is itself relative to the most recent model under scrutiny. The true status of anything is defined by its probability as a measure of its validity which remains in a state of flux since probabilities still contain their own inherent uncertainties.

[Dalek Prime]

No matter how great we consider our minds, it's a given that a part of a system can never recreate that same system, as well as it was found in. And that's because the part can only model that which it can understand, not the whole.

[BradburyPound]

There's been no philosophical schema or proposition offered, that I'm aware of, whose assumptions can't be brought into question.

Without firm epistemological or ontological grounding, the true status of anything, and everything, is up in the air. If we say a particular grounding is 'good enough' or 'good enough for this particular purpose' then we're either just playing metaphysical mind games or submitting to the 'shut up and calculate' school of scientific non-philosophy.

Your problem is hyperbole.
And thus you have made 'everything' you have said invalid.

[Owly]

Oh absolutely, if what I said was taken as a metaphysical proposition then it would suffer the same fate as other metaphysical propositions and systems - it would be question begging or self-refuting. But it was merely an empirical observation, not a fact, along with a suggestion, not a prescription.

[osgart]

Philosophy must embark on the unknown never just on empirical evidence. It must provide possibility and plausibility. If you just and only listen to science that is the most narrow closed off reasoning you can take. To say free will is an illusion and its scientifically proven is to rely on a severly limited process.
Philosophy must explore the unknown and forever go against the grain of science. For every certainty their must be counterbalance and opposition. For every known is the unknown; a much larger scope that can turn knowns into mere smidgeons or even fallacy. As has been done before.
Science has very little place in the subjective.
Philosophy must humble science or people will end up brainwashed.

[BradburyPound]

Oh absolutely, if what I said was taken as a metaphysical proposition then it would suffer the same fate as other metaphysical propositions and systems - it would be question begging or self-refuting. But it was merely an empirical observation, not a fact, along with a suggestion, not a prescription.

Is this supposed to be a response to what I said?

[Owly]

Yes, did I misinterpret? I thought you were saying it was self refuting.

[BradburyPound]

Yes, did I misinterpret? I thought you were saying it was self refuting.

I said'Your problem is hyperbole.
And thus you have made 'everything' you have said invalid."

And you've not said anything to unpack your hyperbole except to assume a metaphysical position which invalidates what you say

[Owly]

"There's been no philosophical schema or proposition offered, that I'm aware of, whose assumptions can't be brought into question." - how is this a metaphysical position?

Insofar as philosophy, in the broadest sense, is the attempt to establish what exactly is going on, then surely you can see that it's a problem that even such apparently fundamental things as the uniformity of nature, quantification, and the 'law' of identity appear to lack foundation.

[thedoc]

What is the ideal number of teeth that should be in a horses mouth?