What's the point of philosophy any more?

[Edwardo Piet]

I say this as a person who agrees with you, completely, on whether or not we an be objectively certain of this and that... acknowledging the "may" is just being upfront about the limitations of not only our specific position..but also the means by which we arrived at it.  

If you are saying "may" in such a way that doesn't imply "may not" then you're not acknowedging anything. And if you are suggesting that there is a "may not" (what are these limitations that we speak of? I'm talking about X being X no matter what in any universe regardless of who does or doesn't exist to understand that truth)... then we don't agree completely.

You've done this before too, insisted that you're agreeing with me while saying things that imply that you very much don't. My position is that X is X no matter what... period. X is X means whatever a thing is it is what it is. No people or words required, we're using words to refer to a truth that is true regardless of whether words or we exist.

There are no limitations to truths that are absolutely certain. Unless we're talking about something else.

Sure there are many things that we may never know, but just because there are limits to knowledge doesn't mean there is limits to absolute logical truth. Either something is X or it is not X, whether we are able to figure out the correct answer is a different matter.

Agreed, something I find myself reminding people constantly in discussions on objectoive moral systems..but since we agree on this and it isn't a point of dispute between us in this discussion....?

It doesn't matter whether we hold the same opinion on objective morality. If you don't actually agree that X absolutely is X then you can't think that anything absolutely is wrong or right. We may have come to the same position, but how we came to that position is the difference.

Something isn't dogma just because you say it is. Something has to actually be dogmatic for it to be dogma. There's nothing less dogmatic than starting from a sound premise.

Starting with an irrelevant conclusion is dogmatic, and saying that everything is true or all opinions are equal may be less dangerous, but it's equally absurd.

Dogma - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.  

Ah, but what about other dictionaries that say dogma is something else?

Completely irrelevant. That would just mean we were talking about something else.

---

I don't know why you would think that.  OFC I think reason is important. 

But you dogmatically hold the position that absolute certainty is dogmatic regardless of reason. I'm absolutely certain that absolute certainty itself is only dogmatic in some cases and the cases in which it is is due to a lack of reason for itself not a mere presence of itself for no reason at all.

I am aware that you think otherwise, but how you get to that position makes no sense.