There are many possible philosophical systems. I do not think that any philosopohy will do. Some are more correct than others, some maybe completely flawed, some mostly correct, but the measure by which any philsophy must be judged is a practical one. A philosophy is a model for thinking, living, learning, and loving. If a philosophy does not address these things in respect to the real, the concrete, and the abstract, then we must question whether or not such a system has any value to us. Arbitrary philosophy is possible, but not useful. So if a philosophy is not arbitrary, what is it? Put simply, philosophy must have a solid foundation. And the most solid foundation that we have is reality itself.
There are many philosophical systems that share a common grounding. These all refer to reality as a reference and sanity-check on the statements made. If a philosophy contradicts or is contraindicated by reality, then something must be wrong with it, or alternatively something might be wrong with our perception. Since the bit about perception has never yet happened, it is much more likely likely that our construction of a model is flawed and the not the means of perceiving reality. One depends on the other, so if we can’t perceive it, it is going to be awfully impossible to construct any useful models as to its operation.
These are systems of philosophy and my critique. I don’t consider these philosophical systems to be useful and I intend to share my analysis to enable others to avoid the wasted effort of struggling with broken systems that claim to be correct. Note that some of these are more broken than others. Some might be useful as other than just counter-examples. I should also note that one benefit of a good philosophy is that it has descriptive power that makes it possible to differentiate between broken premises and sound premises. Without this descriptive power; what’s the point?