What is the one Question here a philosopher has difficulty answering? (a subjective philosopher).?

Everything in life is a process. Including knowledge. We cannot say that something is objective if that means it is not a part of that process. We can say that it is objective as far as we understand objectivity to mean. 

But are we gods to claim some greater unknown knowledge? Does saying X is objective as in true regardless make it so? We do not understand it to be true regardless, because we must regard it’s place within our awareness. The world outside the mind exists only as imagination for those which believe it so. It is a belief. Everything which we claim to know is in our imagination as a belief. Sustained by experience and the constructions of the mind in what they can infer. 

We are constructed such that these beliefs and imaginings are part of our experience. When you see something in the dark or the corner of your eye, your perception and your belief is part of what you see. And as you get a better look it actually morphs into something else than it did originally. As you get a better look, your beliefs and imagination and perception adapt. 

It’s all happening in the brain. The whole universe as you understand it as you ever understood it is in the brain. So it is deeper than mind. It is machine also.

And maybe we are machines with delusions of having a mind. Mind is just an idea we use to organise perception. It’s a tool. Everything we do is a tool in the process of biology. We have these things because evolution as we became human beings necessitates it. That is how the species reproduces and how it proliferates and expands ensuring its future. 

We need to lift these delusions we have and get down to reality. We exist in the light chamber of the brain. 

Alternatively mind can be viewed as a collective organising principle for the machine. Mind is an activity of the machine in us.

What we do as philosophers is more than words like knowledge or objectivity or subjectivity. What we seek is understanding.  Knowledge is just a construct within the understanding. And what we do as practitioners is based on how we formulate it. It’s not or should not be thought of as a static understanding. But as a moving process of the evolution of being. 

We exist within a moving universe. Our beliefs and perceptions and understanding must move with it. As we are part of that moving universe. We are that moving universe which has created ideas such as mind and mentality. We are the forces of nature in ever flux and form. One animus. One form and one flux. 

This is what I understand. My beliefs lead me to acknowledge the scientific process. And I think our idea of science is not a static one at all. But evolves into what produces the best intel on the processes of nature. Induction, deduction, abduction; it does not matter. Results matter. And these things are only as good as their service to us. 

My 1st Question was my main one although I can see that it can easily be

inextricably linked directly with Darwin's biological (philosophy) Theory.

I can apologise for that with the fact that I didn't put "And.."  before that separate

question.

My first Question above refers to the difficulty that a subjective philosopher

has with the Question.. Does such a philosopher believe that the Philosophy

Category produces new unique knowledge going forward ?

In the Darwinian biological sphere it sure looks as if there may not be

new knowledge-going-forward. Though only Looks-as-if-there-may-not

be so to speak.

I still recommend that in Darwin's Selection Theory there is philosophy

of the objective kind which is propping it up and giving it a so far unrivalled 

and unnecessary prominence at the very heart of what should be human 

sustainable science.

Sustainable science with increasing Intelligent design of the actual process

of adaptation and survival technique.^

 I have processed the solution to the above already I believe.

 In which case it is just a matter of describing that part of the

 solution into biological proof.

 And I have been given a clean bill-of-health from my doctors though

 time is of-the-essence for me and therefore the above.

 So I will post those relevant details as and when I can (this should

 not stop any interested Objective readers in their own objective studies 

 and so their own independent objective solutions).

^ Hopeful Intelligent design of the philosophy, adaptation and survival processes.     

The highest morality is genuine human compassion and mindfulness for ones peers and fellow humanity.

Each question is relative to circumstances situation and factors in situ. Philosophers each have their individual path on the philosophical journey of self awaking and realisation. There is no question I find difficult to answer for all enquires have a timely answer concordant to the time and place and gathering. I think and question whether I am often

How can you pass the test if your moral now is zero? I mean it is only a virus pandemic, how about WWIII, can you still handle it?

The one question we cannot answer is why you persist in posting your questions in a 4th rate forum. Is it because you cannot hold your own on one of the top 10 philosophy forums? Do they make fun of you there? 

Natural selection isn't a philosophy. It is a process by which species adapt such that the most suited to survive survive. It's not a study of the nature of knowledge.

UPDATE:

Yes, it was. You asked, "Is "Intelligent Design" philosophy plump in open possibilities much more so than Scientific (Darwinian) biological Selection?"

What you're errantly referring to as "Scientific (Darwinian) biological Selection [sic]" is actually called "natural selection" and in that question you are asking if one philosophy, that of "Intelligent Design" is much more open to possibilities than that of natural selection, but natural selection isn't a philosophy.