If one establishes a self-attesting nature of authority, one may then establish the methodology for evaluating the way various philosophers argue for their position.
I confess that I am using reason to express the limitations of reason. I think it can be established that the philosophers’ tools are limited. However, I may need to use some other approach to illustrate my point. It may need to be communicated via fiction.
It seems so clear to me why the dialogues were a valuable tool for Plato. In some sense they allowed Plato to say something that he could not say.
I believe I am at the end of my words.
I mentioned earlier that I might use the tools of philosophy to demonstrate the futility of philosophy. The philosopher might argue that my appeal to reason undermines my whole point. It does not. I use reason only to demonstrate the limitations of reason. This is reasonable. It might be no different than Wittgenstein using words to demonstrate the problem with words. He was not arguing that words had no value; I am not arguing that reason has no value. But I am limited to some form of expression by both my own metaphysical genetics and by those of my readers/listeners. Words are obstacles.
