What is Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, you don't think so, and you are not sure because you lack the essential knowledge and the philosophical tools to dig into the deeper root cause of the problem.

To resolve the existential crisis, the majority turn to theism and religions to soothe the existential pains.[/list]

Never argue with anyone who thinks the theory of evolution explains everything.

The 'currency to be traded' in this forum is "justified and sound arguments."
I have provided justified sound arguments, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me if I don't do that.
The onus is you to counter argue my arguments why they are false or unjustified.

I am not relying purely on the theory of evolution but a various range of justified evidences.

Are you familiar with anthropology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Tons of evidences has been collected and verified by the long lines of anthropologists and their evidences and conclusions are supported by psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurosciences, and eclectic sources, etc.

That is the essence of what is philosophy, i.e. the recourse all available tools, knowledge, wisdom, practices, etc. to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to team-humanity.

[tapaticmadness]

Yes, you don't think so, and you are not sure because you lack the essential knowledge and the philosophical tools to dig into the deeper root cause of the problem.

To resolve the existential crisis, the majority turn to theism and religions to soothe the existential pains.[/list]

Never argue with anyone who thinks the theory of evolution explains everything.

The 'currency to be traded' in this forum is "justified and sound arguments."
I have provided justified sound arguments, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me if I don't do that.
The onus is you to counter argue my arguments why they are false or unjustified.

I am not relying purely on the theory of evolution but a various range of justified evidences.

Are you familiar with anthropology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Tons of evidences has been collected and verified by the long lines of anthropologists and their evidences and conclusions are supported by psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurosciences, and eclectic sources, etc.

That is the essence of what is philosophy, i.e. the recourse all available tools, knowledge, wisdom, practices, etc. to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to team-humanity.

Everything you present is speculation. It may be true; it may be false, but it is not justified, sound arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Never argue with anyone who thinks the theory of evolution explains everything.

The 'currency to be traded' in this forum is "justified and sound arguments."
I have provided justified sound arguments, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me if I don't do that.
The onus is you to counter argue my arguments why they are false or unjustified.

I am not relying purely on the theory of evolution but a various range of justified evidences.

Are you familiar with anthropology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Tons of evidences has been collected and verified by the long lines of anthropologists and their evidences and conclusions are supported by psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurosciences, and eclectic sources, etc.

That is the essence of what is philosophy, i.e. the recourse all available tools, knowledge, wisdom, practices, etc. to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to team-humanity.

Everything you present is speculation. It may be true; it may be false, but it is not justified, sound arguments.

Speculation?? That is the problem with your ignorance and the indifference to research in depth and width on the issues.

What is false with tribalism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

[tapaticmadness]

The 'currency to be traded' in this forum is "justified and sound arguments."
I have provided justified sound arguments, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me if I don't do that.
The onus is you to counter argue my arguments why they are false or unjustified.

I am not relying purely on the theory of evolution but a various range of justified evidences.

Are you familiar with anthropology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Tons of evidences has been collected and verified by the long lines of anthropologists and their evidences and conclusions are supported by psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurosciences, and eclectic sources, etc.

That is the essence of what is philosophy, i.e. the recourse all available tools, knowledge, wisdom, practices, etc. to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to team-humanity.

Everything you present is speculation. It may be true; it may be false, but it is not justified, sound arguments.

Speculation?? That is the problem with your ignorance and the indifference to research in depth and width on the issues.

What is false with tribalism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Let's get this straight. I am the one who believes in tribes and I think they can be either good or bad. It isn't tribalism itself that is bad. You, however, seem to believe that tribalism is essentially bad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Everything you present is speculation. It may be true; it may be false, but it is not justified, sound arguments.

Speculation?? That is the problem with your ignorance and the indifference to research in depth and width on the issues.

What is false with tribalism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Let's get this straight. I am the one who believes in tribes and I think they can be either good or bad. It isn't tribalism itself that is bad. You, however, seem to believe that tribalism is essentially bad.

I stated tribalism [strong] was very critical in the early phases of human evolution.
As humans evolved further the instinctual tribalism began to erode in its criticalness, but at present, there is still some [fading] relevance for the tribalism instinct.

The point is because the tribalism instinct is inherently and unavoidably embedded deep in the brain/mind, this instinct will creep out in various circumstances.

Tribalism obvious has its pro due to its survival value in the past, but it is obvious the cons of tribalism is outweighing its cons as humanity progress into the future.
However don't conflate tribalism [primal] with specialization in groups to promote efficiency in certain work.

I contend tribalism [primal] cannot be absolutely good nor has any good in the future and co-operation between all human is critical to establish team-humanity for the greater good of all.
This is very possible when humanity has developed the ability to manage and suppress this basic instinct effectively.

The trend re the inhibition of tribalism is the same as the current progress of humanity in managing the impulse to enslave another human.
The other is the potential to kill which was necessary for survival [kill animals for food] and self-defense.
Surely you cannot insist to kill another human isn't all that bad till eternity?
Point is towards the future, killing another human in whatever the circumstances is never good at all.

[tapaticmadness]

Speculation?? That is the problem with your ignorance and the indifference to research in depth and width on the issues.

What is false with tribalism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Let's get this straight. I am the one who believes in tribes and I think they can be either good or bad. It isn't tribalism itself that is bad. You, however, seem to believe that tribalism is essentially bad.

I stated tribalism [strong] was very critical in the early phases of human evolution.
As humans evolved further the instinctual tribalism began to erode in its criticalness, but at present, there is still some [fading] relevance for the tribalism instinct.

The point is because the tribalism instinct is inherently and unavoidably embedded deep in the brain/mind, this instinct will creep out in various circumstances.

Tribalism obvious has its pro due to its survival value in the past, but it is obvious the cons of tribalism is outweighing its cons as humanity progress into the future.
However don't conflate tribalism [primal] with specialization in groups to promote efficiency in certain work.

I contend tribalism [primal] cannot be absolutely good nor has any good in the future and co-operation between all human is critical to establish team-humanity for the greater good of all.
This is very possible when humanity has developed the ability to manage and suppress this basic instinct effectively.

The trend re the inhibition of tribalism is the same as the current progress of humanity in managing the impulse to enslave another human.
The other is the potential to kill which was necessary for survival [kill animals for food] and self-defense.
Surely you cannot insist to kill another human isn't all that bad till eternity?
Point is towards the future, killing another human in whatever the circumstances is never good at all.

I think you are advocating the type of anthropology that is called structuralism. In the late 1970s the post-structuralists or deconstructionalists came on strong. In later years, even up to today, there are those, especially on the alt-right, who can't say enough bad things about post-structuralism. Where do you stand on that issue? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_IYn6ZEKqs

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's get this straight. I am the one who believes in tribes and I think they can be either good or bad. It isn't tribalism itself that is bad. You, however, seem to believe that tribalism is essentially bad.

I stated tribalism [strong] was very critical in the early phases of human evolution.
As humans evolved further the instinctual tribalism began to erode in its criticalness, but at present, there is still some [fading] relevance for the tribalism instinct.

The point is because the tribalism instinct is inherently and unavoidably embedded deep in the brain/mind, this instinct will creep out in various circumstances.

Tribalism obvious has its pro due to its survival value in the past, but it is obvious the cons of tribalism is outweighing its cons as humanity progress into the future.
However don't conflate tribalism [primal] with specialization in groups to promote efficiency in certain work.

I contend tribalism [primal] cannot be absolutely good nor has any good in the future and co-operation between all human is critical to establish team-humanity for the greater good of all.
This is very possible when humanity has developed the ability to manage and suppress this basic instinct effectively.

The trend re the inhibition of tribalism is the same as the current progress of humanity in managing the impulse to enslave another human.
The other is the potential to kill which was necessary for survival [kill animals for food] and self-defense.
Surely you cannot insist to kill another human isn't all that bad till eternity?
Point is towards the future, killing another human in whatever the circumstances is never good at all.

I think you are advocating the type of anthropology that is called structuralism. In the late 1970s the post-structuralists or deconstructionalists came on strong. In later years, even up to today, there are those, especially on the alt-right, who can't say enough bad things about post-structuralism. Where do you stand on that issue? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_IYn6ZEKqs

You think? but your thought is wrong.
You are too hasty - again due to lack of extensive knowledge.

Structuralism proposes that one may understand human culture by means of a structure—modeled on language (structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a "third order" that mediates between the two.

My thoughts has nothing to do in direct alignment with anthropology called structuralism nor post-structuralism which is more towards linguistic anthropology.

In this perspective of interaction, my view is that of the System Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

The human person is a system comprised of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems.
Do you deny that?
The human system is part of larger systems, i.e. the tribe, local, district, national, planetary, solar system, galactical, universe, etc.
Do you deny the above?

Again you are missing on the above.

You are too hasty - again due to lack of extensive knowledge.

Here is the critical point;

Systems theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. One scopes a system by defining its boundary; this means choosing which entities are inside the system and which are outside—part of the environment.

One can make simplified representations (models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior.

The most critical system within the human system is the human neural [brain] system which is very very complex.

The tribalistic sub-system is embedded deep within the human brain system.

Thus my point is we need to identify the respective system precisely then manage and modulate the variables involved to produce improved results of human behaviors.
This will panic and freak you out [you think.. frankenstein ] because you are not thinking far ahead.
I am optimistic we can establish FOOLPROOF [note this!] process and promote self-development to good human behaviors.

That's philosophy-proper, one need to think harder, deeper, wider, more intelligently as supported by justified arguments.

[tapaticmadness]

The human person is a system comprised of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems.
Do you deny that?

Yes, I deny that. Your view of man is much too anthropomorphic. You, of course, miss the theomorphic part. Every system is composed of fundamental elements. If you don't believe that then you believe that every part of the system is itself a sub-system. And so on down the line forever, never reaching the bottom. I assert that there are fundamental elements, urelementen in German, that are simple and thus cannot be analyzed any further. Those fundamental ontological elements are the Platonic Forms. They are the gods of religion. You accuse me of not having learned system theory and such. I accuse you of not having learned fundamental ontology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The human person is a system comprised of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems.
Do you deny that?

Yes, I deny that. Your view of man is much too anthropomorphic. You, of course, miss the theomorphic part. Every system is composed of fundamental elements. If you don't believe that then you believe that every part of the system is itself a sub-system. And so on down the line forever, never reaching the bottom. I assert that there are fundamental elements, urelementen in German, that are simple and thus cannot be analyzed any further. Those fundamental ontological elements are the Platonic Forms. They are the gods of religion. You accuse me of not having learned system theory and such. I accuse you of not having learned fundamental ontology.

So you claim systems don't exist in reality?

The logic with system theory is a system is comprised of infinite systems supported by what is real, i.e. empiricism and philosophically.
There is no way you can infer an independent fundamental part from what is a system, that is a contradiction.

You cannot accused me of being ignorant of what is Ontology.
I am very familiar with ontology but I don't belief the fundamental ontological entity are real.
I have already disputed the 'ontological theories' of Philosophical Realism.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Are you aware of the heavy criticisms of Philosophical Realism and in the same light, independent ontological beings, Plato's Forms, ideas and Universals, thing-in-itself?

The other in the same light is substance theory;

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.

Note its criticism here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

One example of the untenability of independent ontological substance is the following;

Wonder if you are familiar with this?
If you take something solid and attempt to track to its independent fundamental element, you will not find one except to end with something that is dependent on the human conditions.
Note the search from what beyond atoms, proton, and electron ending with the fundamental particle which can be wave or particle depending on human intervention.
Wave Function Collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above Wave Function Collapse refutes the independent ontological thing-in-itself.

If you insist, show proofs or argument a thing-in-itself can exists independent of everything especially the human conditions.

One point you can reflect upon is this;

• Reality is all-there-is.
  Human beings [7b+] are part and parcel of all-there-is.
  Therefore how can a human being extricated himself from all-there-is where is an intricate part of, to make an independent objective proposition of reality - all-there-is.

[tapaticmadness]

The human person is a system comprised of sub-systems and sub-sub-systems.
Do you deny that?

Yes, I deny that. Your view of man is much too anthropomorphic. You, of course, miss the theomorphic part. Every system is composed of fundamental elements. If you don't believe that then you believe that every part of the system is itself a sub-system. And so on down the line forever, never reaching the bottom. I assert that there are fundamental elements, urelementen in German, that are simple and thus cannot be analyzed any further. Those fundamental ontological elements are the Platonic Forms. They are the gods of religion. You accuse me of not having learned system theory and such. I accuse you of not having learned fundamental ontology.

So you claim systems don't exist in reality?

I never said that systems don't exist. They are complex objects and complex objects exist.

The logic with system theory is a system is comprised of infinite systems supported by what is real, i.e. empiricism and philosophically.
There is no way you can infer an independent fundamental part from what is a system, that is a contradiction.

I'm not inferring anything. I am observing that a system has parts. I see them. They exist. Infinite systems is another consideration.

You cannot accused me of being ignorant of what is Ontology.
I am very familiar with ontology but I don't belief the fundamental ontological entity are real.
I have already disputed the 'ontological theories' of Philosophical Realism.

Please direct me again to where you disputed Philosophical Realism

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Are you aware of the heavy criticisms of Philosophical Realism and in the same light, independent ontological beings, Plato's Forms, ideas and Universals, thing-in-itself?

I am extremely aware of all those criticisms. I have spent years dealing with such matters. And, Yes, ontological things exist independently of and separate from mental acts that intend them.

The other in the same light is substance theory;

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.

I am an anti-substantialist. I am a Platonist, not an Aristotelian.

Note its criticism here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

One example of the untenability of independent ontological substance is the following;

Wonder if you are familiar with this?
If you take something solid and attempt to track to its independent fundamental element, you will not find one except to end with something that is dependent on the human conditions.
Note the search from what beyond atoms, proton, and electron ending with the fundamental particle which can be wave or particle depending on human intervention.
Wave Function Collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

The above Wave Function Collapse refutes the independent ontological thing-in-itself.

I am doing ontology, not physics, though I have read some cosmology. I believe in Everett's Many-Worlds theory and In that theory there is no Wave Function Collapse. Still, I am just an amateur at cosmology. This is a great book. I highly recommend it. https://www.amazon.com/Something-Deeply ... 733&sr=8-2

If you insist, show proofs or argument a thing-in-itself can exists independent of everything especially the human conditions.

For me the criterion for existence is the Principle of Presentation, which says that if I can think it, it exists and if it exists, I can think it. That is extreme empiricism. There is no rationalistic proof beyond that.

One point you can reflect upon is this;

• Reality is all-there-is.
  Human beings [7b+] are part and parcel of all-there-is.
  Therefore how can a human being extricated himself from all-there-is where is an intricate part of, to make an independent objective proposition of reality - all-there-is.

Reality is not all-there-is. There is no such thing as all-there-is, just as there is no such thing as the set of all sets. To be real means that there is a complex that is pervaded by Actuality. Actuality is a simple thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot accused me of being ignorant of what is Ontology.
I am very familiar with ontology but I don't belief the fundamental ontological entity are real.
I have already disputed the 'ontological theories' of Philosophical Realism.

Please direct me again to where you disputed Philosophical Realism

Note this; 21 March 2020 in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=447728#p447728
I mentioned my Philosophical anti-Realism stance twice in this thread.

Are you aware of the heavy criticisms of Philosophical Realism and in the same light, independent ontological beings, Plato's Forms, ideas and Universals, thing-in-itself?

I am extremely aware of all those criticisms. I have spent years dealing with such matters. And, Yes, ontological things exist independently of and separate from mental acts that intend them.

You have not provided any justification how they [independent ontological beings and things] exist independently.

The other in the same light is substance theory;


I am an anti-substantialist. I am a Platonist, not an Aristotelian.

Plato's ideas and universals are illusory things.
Prove and justify they are real?

Note its criticism here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

One example of the untenability of independent ontological substance is the following;

The above Wave Function Collapse refutes the independent ontological thing-in-itself.

I am doing ontology, not physics, though I have read some cosmology. I believe in Everett's Many-Worlds theory and In that theory there is no Wave Function Collapse. Still, I am just an amateur at cosmology. This is a great book. I highly recommend it. https://www.amazon.com/Something-Deeply ... 733&sr=8-2

Btw Physics like other Science assumes the ontological existing of things.

If you insist, show proofs or argument a thing-in-itself can exists independent of everything especially the human conditions.

For me the criterion for existence is the Principle of Presentation, which says that if I can think it, it exists and if it exists, I can think it. That is extreme empiricism. There is no rationalistic proof beyond that.

Any madman, psychotic, schizophrenic can make that claim.
That is not extreme empiricism but extreme rationalization without empirical grounds.

One point you can reflect upon is this;

• Reality is all-there-is.
  Human beings [7b+] are part and parcel of all-there-is.
  Therefore how can a human being extricated himself from all-there-is where is an intricate part of, to make an independent objective proposition of reality - all-there-is.

Reality is not all-there-is. There is no such thing as all-there-is, just as there is no such thing as the set of all sets. To be real means that there is a complex that is pervaded by Actuality. Actuality is a simple thing.

What?? Reality is not all-there-is?
If not 'all-there-is' then you are claiming reality = nothing-there-is or some-there-is?

In your above sense of actuality as a simple thing is merely groundless noise.
You are not providing any justifications at all.

[tapaticmadness]

Note this; 21 March 2020 in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=447728#p447728
I mentioned my Philosophical anti-Realism stance twice in this thread.

Your so-called proof depends on there being such things as concepts. I say that there are no such things as concepts. Instead of concepts, I say there are universals. The difference between a concepts and a universal is that while concepts are "in" the mind and dependent on the mind, universals are "external" to the mind and not dependent on it. The philosopher I like said that concepts are universals that have gone into exile in the mind.

A realist says that treeness is a universal that exists external to the mind and it is that that accounts for all trees being trees. A conceptualist says treeness is a concept that the mind has abstracted away from many particulars in the world. You cannot prove that conceptualism is true by assuming that treeness is a concept and that universals are really just concepts. That's not a proof. You have merely assumed that one side is right and the other is therefore wrong.

[tapaticmadness]

For me the criterion for existence is the Principle of Presentation, which says that if I can think it, it exists and if it exists, I can think it. That is extreme empiricism. There is no rationalistic proof beyond that.

Any madman, psychotic, schizophrenic can make that claim.
That is not extreme empiricism but extreme rationalization without empirical grounds.

[/quote]

We might actually agree on something here. I have often said that philosophy is madness.and I have written a truckload about just that. My inspiration comes from Plato's Phaedrus. Many many philosophers through the ages have taken that as inspiration. You are correct is believing that from that Principle of Presentation all manner of mad philosophy flows. That is why I love philosophy. I am mad. (I think you know that my madness is totally erotic, sexual, scandalously paranormal.) Of course you as a sensible rationalist who follows commonsense will have to cover your ears when I speak my delight.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this; 21 March 2020 in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=447728#p447728
I mentioned my Philosophical anti-Realism stance twice in this thread.

Your so-called proof depends on there being such things as concepts. I say that there are no such things as concepts. Instead of concepts, I say there are universals. The difference between a concepts and a universal is that while concepts are "in" the mind and dependent on the mind, universals are "external" to the mind and not dependent on it. The philosopher I like said that concepts are universals that have gone into exile in the mind.

You are entrapped by the 'container' metaphor, i.e. concepts are "in" the mind while universals are "outside" the mind.
https://glossary.sil.org/term/container-metaphor

Point is the container metaphor is a primal instinct which has survival value and is still necessary at present for a range of reality, e.g. common sense, science, etc. but at higher level of reality, this container metaphor loses its effective thus one has to shift paradigm.

This is how in Physics there is a shift from independent external object to observer dependent objects as in Einstein Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics. Point is this perspective of mind-dependent objects brought forth greater utilities, note quantum mechanics in the field of computer and other technology.

In the field of spirituality, higher spirituality also shift from ontological independent God and soul [theism] to the criticalness of the mind-dependent spirituality [as in Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies].
Independent driven theism has brought forth tons of terrible evil and sufferings to human and it with its rigidity has the potential to exterminate the human species at the rate it is going via the abuse of Science by SOME theists.

True, the non-theists could also abuse Science and exterminate the human species but non-theist is not any rigid ideology thus has room to progress towards the highest good.

The idea of an external world and the speculation of universals is useful and common sense but that is very primal and primitive.

Concepts are not "in" the mind.
We must never be entrapped by the container metaphor at all times.
Concepts are emerge spontaneously with reality, concepts are not 'in' the mind when it is necessary to reflect more deeply on reality to generate greater utility to humanity.
Thus "in" and "out" are emergences with the mind not independent from the mind.

A realist says that treeness is a universal that exists external to the mind and it is that that accounts for all trees being trees. A conceptualist says treeness is a concept that the mind has abstracted away from many particulars in the world. You cannot prove that conceptualism is true by assuming that treeness is a concept and that universals are really just concepts. That's not a proof. You have merely assumed that one side is right and the other is therefore wrong.

That treeness as a universal existing external to the mind is merely a convenience for the sake of communication. There is no real 'treeness'.
It is the same with concepts, they are emergences for a matter of convenience of realization and communication.
Note the dilemma with the platypus which has 'birdness' and 'mammalness' fused together, so which is which?

Is there such thing [universal] as an externalness of 'waterdroplet_ness' to account for all waterdroplets?
This is a matter of convenience not of reality.
To be realistic we should identify each water-droplet in terms of bundles of X-number of H2O molecules which is more realistic but that is not practical.

The point with universals existing independent of the mind is they cannot be verified to exists as real. How can you do that?

Whereas a concept of an apple is linked to empirical apples as observed.
At the end of the day, the concept an apple is always linked to some physical apples or drawings of an apple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For me the criterion for existence is the Principle of Presentation, which says that if I can think it, it exists and if it exists, I can think it. That is extreme empiricism. There is no rationalistic proof beyond that.

Any madman, psychotic, schizophrenic can make that claim.
That is not extreme empiricism but extreme rationalization without empirical grounds.

We might actually agree on something here. I have often said that philosophy is madness.and I have written a truckload about just that. My inspiration comes from Plato's Phaedrus. Many many philosophers through the ages have taken that as inspiration. You are correct is believing that from that Principle of Presentation all manner of mad philosophy flows. That is why I love philosophy. I am mad. (I think you know that my madness is totally erotic, sexual, scandalously paranormal.) Of course you as a sensible rationalist who follows commonsense will have to cover your ears when I speak my delight.)

So you agree with me you are mad as certified by a professional based on the DSM-V
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
You should seek a psychiatric to confirm your thought.

Philosophy-proper is not madness but a systematic pursuit with intelligence and wisdom as defined in the OP.