I love abstract reasoning and I have very high regard for your reasoning and writing. In fact, I've learned so much from your writing about various subjects and am highly impressed by your subtle distinctions and masterful reasoning. I also believe that philosophy deals with more important questions than science or engineering (I am a scientist/engineer by training and career). I wish I had more time to read non-technical, non-work related things these days, but circumstances being what they are ...

But philosophy deals with things that are basically undecidable. Although you can argue that everything is undecidable, there is much more evidence in the subjects concerning science, economics (big picture) and historical events. In those fields, this makes estimating which mental model, mathematical model or narrative fits the evidence much more constrainable.

Therefore, to be specific, when I saw your perspective on Ukraine (basically “Putin bad”), it caught me by surprise. While your philosophical insights are highly impressive, your background in philosophy might have limited your ability or inclination to sift through areas rich in empirical evidence.