Antiquated belief system? Funny, I was just going to suggest your post is an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the intellectual integrity of scientific inquiry to metaphysics and normative philosophical issues.
Perhaps we should back up to the point where I can research this topic independently. What post-Sartre philosophers and thinkers are we referencing here?
“Intellectual integrity”? What gobbledygook! You can research your post-Sartre philosophers and thinkers until the sun melts, erislover, and you still won’t find what you seek. For the last hundred years the inexact science of philosophy has been practiced for reasons of academic politics and not for effect. Here is a test to prove the point…
State the prime philosophical idea developed in the 20th Century that influences our world today.
Go → _______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________ .
See? There ain’t none. But no, science, technology, and quantum physics didn’t kill Philosophy, the dogmas of academia did.
But I digress, what I think is that that you misunderstood my special application of the concept “Determinism”.
First off, I think that Determinism as an absolute Philosophy is inherently flawed by it’s own definition. Obviously an absolutely deterministic Universe would not allow something to be born out of nothing. I use of the concept sorta like William James …pragmatically .
Secondly, the use of the word “philosophy” as meaning, “a separate rational investigation into the nature of existence, knowledge, and ethics.” is no longer a viable tool of society today. Semantical constructions of belief systems, no matter how well constructed, without accompanying empirical data are simply clever word games, while religion and mathematics and tarot cards serve society well in their place.
Thirdly, I am beginning to think that the internet is a poor vehicle for me to use when I try to convey my notions of philosophy. No matter how elaborate and intricate are my understandings, I end up giving up, and so express my thoughts in printed sound bites.
:smack: Damn internet. 
Dude, I’m just trying to understand what the hell your’re saying, and why the hell you’re saying it. I’m not seeking anything; I’m rather comfortable with my worldview.
Well no shit. I don’t have a “most favorite” movie, either, but that doesn’t mean there were no good movies released in the 20th century.
What dogmas? There aren’t still philosophers writing? Or are you just not paying attention to them?
Likely so, I tend to understand words as I was raised or otherwise introduced to their use.
Well, then I suggest you investigate science a little more. This is not only obvious, but false.
This explains nothing to me, really. Sorry.
Your mistake, then, is understanding the scope of philosophy. It answers the question, “What are mathematics?” It also discusses the question, “Why may we use mathematics to understand the world around us?” Let us not forget the debates among mathematicians about which axioms are acceptable for use. Religion, of course, has philosophical elements. I find this so obvious that it is almost beyond my ability to conceive of anyone thinking differently. Religion was where a great amount of philosophical work has been done for centuries.
Maybe you should just invent new words instead of changing the meaning of existing ones to suit your needs. People might understand you better.
Sorry Dude, I misunderstood your interest in philosophy. Forgive me. But thank you anyway for the comments. It was rather refreshing to meet (so to speak) someone who is rather comfortable with his worldview. Later, Dude.