One of my critiques of continental philosophers, especially post modernist types, is they tend to focus far too much on moral narratives and not enough on the process of reason itself. How can we assert something is moral without first having an objective process to define what morality represents? Without that, everything becomes subjective. IMO this is at the heart of why leftists are prone to adopting subjective views on culture, ethics, and so on… except when it comes to calling their own leftist ideology subjective in which case they claim to be objective.
I can’t prove it without omniscience but I believe in a knowable universe even if imperfectly so. I’m not just guessing to come to this conclusion. I look at the scientific method and it clearly works better than a voodoo doctor at curing diseases. The two points of view are not equal in merit. Where I think confusion arises is because we all make mistakes, due largely to complexity, some assume there is no objective view.
Philosophy to humans is sort of like software to a computer. Our finite brains are incapable of processing all information as there is just too much of it. Our minds create shortcut narratives (our code, our philosophy, our religion, etc..) to try to help us function in a very complex existence. This IMO why complexity theory is important to philosophy. Ideally we want our brains to filter vast amounts of information as efficiently as possible to arrive at better conclusions.
The aforementioned scientific method is an example of this but I think the proverbial rabbit hole goes much deeper. Even spoken language itself needs to change to make knowledge transfer and information analysis more efficient.
.
