My brain is back!

For the past week, since i started this blog, i've had a terrible sinus infection. Those who know me know that i am incapacitated when i get them. Today i'm feeling alot better and am really ready to do some intellectual shit. (yes, using inappropriate words completely nullifies my reputation, and it is a joke.)

Ok.

My friends have spent alot of their time lately writing dissertations about their beliefs on issues that they have either just been enlightened upon and what to share their knowledge, or really feel that other people should know.
I must first welcome their ideas and willingness to actually sit down and compose a sort-of literature. I am currently writing a book and find it hard to even find the courage to put myself out there.
I can't help feeling, though, that they are publishing these pieces because they feel some authority on their subject and feel that it is necessary for them to enforce their opinion on their readers. If this is their true intentions, then they are severely in the wrong.
It's not that i don't like reading their opinions on things (i spend a good amount of time reading books that are dogmatic by nature), it's that i feel they don't have the true authority to speak on it (Then again, who does?), as well as the writings seem to purpose some self-gratification.
Either way, i think that any time we write something, we should check our motives. I would love to trust their opinions and not have them be tainted by ulterior motives.

What i wanted to actually write about today was philosophy. A lot of the people i encounter (including my friends mentioned above) are involved in some philosophical mission. It may just be that age, or some trend, the epistemology behind the "philosophical mission" is not really what I'm worried about (today). I'm having a difficult time with understanding their conclusions. It seems that the way they go about their assessment is to look at a picture, gather small facets, then section them off into little partitions. It seems like if they're able to label it, or to establish a general tag, then they are satisfied in their understanding. The problem with this is that they're going to find themselves with too many partitions and are not going to be able to refer to their "directory of beliefs."
I used to think that their thought process was anti-philosophical and anti-scientific, but the more i read the more i see famous philosophers doing the exact same thing. That bothers me, of course. (Then i consider their motives to be money and how can you earn money if you run out of subjects to talk about?)

Is it not better to develop a scientifically distilled viewpoint with which to look at everything?
Is it not more satisfying than a constant struggle?
I do not know for sure, but this is the way I'm leaning- heavily.
Problems with this are close mindedness, or too-open mindedness. Either way, please consider your motives in everything. And stop being assholes.