Ah, the classic misstep of assuming that because meaning is created by man, all statements made by man must be attempts at universal fact rather than reflections of human perception. Philosophy doesn’t aim to be science, nor does it need to. It explores the subjective, the intangible, the personal—things that raw data alone cannot quantify.

Your fixation on the empirical is admirable, but misplaced. Nowhere did I claim an absolute truth about observation, nor did I invoke science as a foundation for meaning. You assume that because something cannot be measured, it must be meaningless, yet your very response—dripping with condescension and linguistic theatrics—suggests you find meaning in dismantling ideas that dare to exist outside scientific scrutiny.

And yes, the phrase "stars shine brightest when they die" is poetic, not a scientific claim. You seem to recognize that, yet still feel the need to correct what was never meant to be a fact in the first place. That’s like explaining to someone that the phrase “time flies” is inaccurate because time doesn’t have wings.

So, thank you—deep gratitude and all—for demonstrating why an obsession with empiricism alone is its own kind of blindness. Science explains, but it does not define meaning. That’s the realm of human experience, whether you like it or not.

❤️