deconstruction
Every belief can be argued against, and modified, and argued against, until you’ve deconstructed it into meaninglessness.
What is the ethical framework by which one should live? Well it seems obvious that there are some things that are simply morally wrong such as murder… But on further examination that is flawed. Surely murder is ok if it saves a thousand people! What if we abstract a bit and go with this: do the most good for as many humans as possible. It’s better, it allows us to murder one to save a thousand, but it still leaves questions. What is good? Why humans? Looking deeper we find that “good” is such an ill defined term and humans may not necessarily be more deserving. (bioethics) If you keep thinking about what the proper ethical framework is, you’ll find that ethics as a concept breaks down, nothing makes sense, and nothing you do is ever moral. (Yes that escalated quickly, but I’m trying to keep this short)
This is the problem of deconstruction. If you constantly analyze and tear apart theories, you find that every abstract structure doesn’t really make sense. Deconstructing religion leads to nihilism. Deconstructing deontology leads to utilitarianism (see philosophical collapse, deconstructing utilitarianism leads to even more nihilism. This process applies to every branch of philosophy I’ve encountered, the more you think about these branches, the more you find out that every theory is ad-hoc, that every structure humans have made to organize thought are built off of nothing. In the same way that the patriarchy is a meaninglessness concept built by humans to make sense of society, maybe ethics itself is a meaninglessness concept.
So if every theory is useless, what’s the point of philosophical thought, does anything make sense? That’s a problem for metaphilosophy
