I'm not really an empiricist or a rationalist, although I do value both the ideas of objective reality and of logic.
The reason I part ways with any pure school of philosophy is that it has become a cult of personality of sorts that requires that its members all regurgitate the same belief systems.
I see that almost wherever I look from politics to religion, philosophy to science. Every person is expected to unite in uniformity and agreement. That is something I simply can never do. Sometimes I might just disagree to be contrary. No real reason. I just feel like it.
I think if your goal is to be entirely accurate, you must weigh every position you can possibly conceive of and arrive at some sort of educated higher understanding, which might even lead you to the ability to synthesize an even greater truth through an epiphany that no one else has had before.
I think sectarian thinking is a form of false dilemma, and by framing everything in terms of the most popular world-views all of our minds are fixated on the same type of problem and as such we are all considering the same set of axioms and variables and thus we are arriving at a similar set of conclusions.
It may not be useful from a utilitarian perspective to consider that the mind is inadequate for the task of designing universal truth, that we are inherently biased as human individuals and thus we will never see reality for what it really is, only for what our mind is capable of observing, but ultimately to be fully honest it would be nice if we were at the very least aware of our own knowledge's limitations.
Whether we take things from an objective perspective or a subjective one determines wildly the kind of worldview that we devise. Whether we take things from a moral or a consequential perspective also does the same, and yet at the heart of the matter all of us idealists share a very sincere desire to understand reality and to assist in the development of human civilization towards a more desirable outcome.
Few of us would take the strong moral approach of saying our position is right and justifiable even though it would lead to terrible consequences. Most of us are pragmatists to the degree that we would not choose for our own favored philosophy to become dominate if we knew for sure that it would have detrimental consequences for humanity, yet most of us are so romantic that we have deluded ourselves into truly believing that not only is our way right and true, but that it must necessarily also have the greatest potential outcome for everyone's higher interests. Is this not the very definition of an intellectual blindspot? Do you really want to be the kind of person who suffers from blindness in any area of your life?
What if this finely tuned equilibrium we've arrived at is better than what could be produced by following any pure radical ideology? What if each pure philosophy is so imbalanced in terms of real world human motivations that any one of them would cause disastrous outcomes if they were ever fully enacted? What if practical small incremental changes are the only way to safeguard human civilization from serious population collapses?
Can we live in a world where no one gets their own way, yet everyone gets to hobble along, to survive to some degree, or is the world as it is so ugly that we must flip over the game board at our first opportunity, to totally rewrite the game?
Some days, I like to forget the problems of the world. To forget philosophy. To forget politics. To forget my own personal dissatisfaction with the way things are and to just enjoy the fact that I am alive in this moment in the 21st century with all our technology and I get to enjoy a passing breeze or some other momentary stimuli.
Peace begins in my own heart, and if I cannot allow peace to flourish there, how can I ever hope to be the kind of creature that produces peace in the other areas of my life?