At times I will distinguish between myth and philosophy. Myth is the basis upon which philosophy operates. Myth creates the starting points of any analysis. If the “rich” control everything, then what should be done? Many answers are possible, but they flow naturally from unquestioned first assumptions.
My previous post, that of Sammy Davis, is a myth: this is an appealing story to me, and I see no reason to justify it.
There is an element as well, though, in philosophy in which truth claims are not made, per se, but rather tendencies towards concrete outcomes pointed out. What is the effect on a personality of a philosophy consisting in the belief–the myth–that nothing is worth dying for? What about the belief that dying in battle is the best way to die? Or the belief that some things are worth fighting for, but that the best way to die is in bed, old, and surrounded by people who love you?
One can tease out endless if/then constructions from basic premises. One good use of philosophy is in pointing out, particularly, non linear outcomes from basic premises. There is this tendency among many “philosophers” to want to isolate what they do from empiricism, from validation. They want it be “pure”. Why? Is it not useful information to know that people who believe X tend to experience the emotive state of Y more often than people who believe Z?
As I see it, metaphysical room exists for many competing truth claims, and in analyzing what we will CHOOSE, in the end, to believe to be true, concrete outcomes are irrelevant only to intellectual aesthetes.