Why do subjective philosophers believe in their closed type "love of wisdom" but find it hard to believe in any knowledge^ within any ?

The etymology of philosophy—philo (fraternal love) 

Soph (wisdom.)

Literally It means the love of wisdom, literally.  What I see as wise or love is subjective to my lens.  

That being said—objective ideas have consistency in meaning.  And I believe it was Yuval Noah  Harari who said, “consistency is the playground of dull minds.”  

I am cherry picking quotes here because Etymology gets me feisty and to quote Sapolsky, “Testosterone makes people cocky and egocentric and narcissistic.”   

Sapolsky might also suggest I’m being cheeky because I believe in grace over karma.  It makes me tolerant Of subjectivists and perhaps more prone to crime?  

All kidding aside, I agree we need room for new minds—and why shouldn’t a neuroscientists insights, bring as much punch as some Greek philosophers sitting on a hill talking about freedoms that are only For a small population of free men?  

Carry on.��

 @@@@in lieu of comments—(yeesh YA)   Peter, I just wanted to say I literally plucked those quotes off of Goodreads so I couldn’t tell you the context, I literally was just being a little funny and proving your point that they have interesting and important  things to say.   I found I wanted to read Sapolsky more about forgiveness vs wrath of God and how that affected culture because I needed context.

Objectivity takes discipline, criteria, design. I feel like I have ADD right now—objectivity and focus are needed.  We could really use a rubric.  

Despite their being philosophers, their reasoning and preferences would actually be better addressed in the Psychology forum. One would have to analyze the psycholgical makeup of each one. It is doubtful that there is a one size fits all explanation. 

Well yes I will try to carry on.

I don't know exactly why Noah Harari said that, if it was a slight against

objective philosophy-or-not ; hard to tell sometimes.

Anyway I am pretty sure that objectivity is the way to go, and at least it

does hold out promise for people to learn-from-their mistakes.. as I and

others were taught and for myself I am confident that virtually to a man

(or woman) No subjective philosopher has been able-to- fathom let alone

try it here.

But to tell you the truth after years of trying virtually alone I am not about

to labour the point.. subjective's can carry on "loving their naive views of

wisdom" as long as they don't get above themselves & think that it all is

true. 

For I've made some more of a breakthrough in the stated aim of going

(well) beyond Darwinism and into the better realm of Intelligent design.

Putting philosophy^ on a more critical & rationally environmental

foundation which can capture both the authoritative past ("the Origin of life")

and an emerging (authoritative) future (the aim of life^^).

And this problem puts all others in perspective... for me a resetting of

the turgid and stale philosophy that has not only pervaded the history

of Ideas but also our knowledge gaining system generally.

So to carry on with the idea of Sapolsky quoting Chemistry I'd say too

that any philosopher-worth-his-salt should say that he (Sapolsky)

would be better saying that, 

"BEHAVIOURISM makes people cocky and egocentrically narcissistic.."

(and there will be some more of that once I get going with that solution

 above. And which of course without Robert S's help nothing like that

 could have been achieved so to speak.

 For Professor Sapolsky is a brilliantly wonderful teacher, hopefully more

 people ESPECIALLY philosophers and willing students can come to

 see that ; I mean of course for The OBJECTIVITY because that is what

 this is all about as you my friend allude-to, though you might pardon me

 when saying that If you knew what-was-as-stake you may well 

 have-a-go at resetting your (lens) problem where philosophy may 

 be better focussed on that wisdom-and-beauty (or on wisdom-and-love,) 

 But definition-ism luckily passed at least one student in the History of

 Ideas many years ago and though it could return it for me will never

 gain the notoriety that it once had in philosophy. Or so in any other

 useful discipline (meant sincerely too!).

 Possibly coinciding with "that breakthrough" above my health may be

 returning bodily-wise.. so I will be in touch as that continues.

 Ps that 1st note ^ refers to Objective philosophy only,

 my 2nd ^^ refers to specifically philosophy analysis of such an Aim or

 aims. Where I have written extensively about such elsewhere here.

 And after some years and years of my objective philosophy and

 history-of-Ideas failings see a beautifully prospective I came across

 a novel not so much new as a wonderful goldmine of info in

 "Conjectures and refutations" concerning Philosophy resetting (&

  what does takes me back to a mathematical pictogram I remember

  of something similar with wave interactions..). watch this space! 

 Added thanks for your addition K... unfortunately I jus wrote you a

 very long addition -all about "critical rationalism" in philosophy in 

 respect of your more below.. pressd wrong button & it's lost.

 very Sorry (a wasted hour !)

 Never mind as long as you continue to SEARCH and to try to

 continue to look upon some of the more useless stuff here in yahoo

 philosophy as-so-much subjectivity then I don't think that you or

 anyone else will go "far wrong" so to speak.

 for me I have that Q. where Darwinian Selection is holdin us all

  back inc children & so it should be put-to-bed and even sapolsky

  should revert back to biological psychology and "behavioural biology"

  so to speak. So yes I think I have made enough progress in Intelligent

  Design to finish off that Theory (!) (and to replace it with "Intelligent

  objective Design" or "Intelligent progressive Design"

  {... because THAT's what-it-is so to speak!}

  Anyway at this late hour I must make sure I press the blue button

 and DEFINITELY Not the WHITE one !