Kunst wird zum Fitnessgerät fürs Ego: ein Instrument, das nur eine Übung kennt – bestätigen, beipflichten. Bloß nicht mehrdeutig, widersprüchlich, unbequem.

Thanks, I will get to it.

I see; it’ll be interesting to see how you develop this dissonance. As I understood your earlier point, the reciprocal angle (analytic thinness creating a void the right can fill) is particularly engaging.

If the liberal-analytic stance indirectly motivates authoritarian backlash, is that a weakness of liberalism itself, or a misappropriation by bad-faith actors?

It is itself not grounded empirically but precisely that which it is held against sometimes: conceptual or philosophical reasoning.

And the test, which is often upheld against philosophy for being the measure for „real“ science, shows itself to be reliant on the very philosophical reflection it often contrasts itself with:

Which means the empirical project rests on a theoretical assumption. And in that sense, even the act of testing is an expression of thought (or theory), not something purely empirical. Thus, it seems to me, the foundation of empirical sciences is thought and not the empirical realm.

It shows that empirical science depends on a philosophical presupposition about what scientifically sound knowledge is. Put differently: If the necessity of testing cannot itself be tested, then the principle grounding empirical science is not empirical but theoretical.

What I worked out thus far:

Though empirical testing is not part of the truth-conditions of a theory but part of its justification: the (justificatory) framework is itself not empirical tested. The principle that only empirically testable claims count as scientific is an act of thought.