Of course you cannot free yourself from the laws of nature; but the laws of nervous systems are not the same as the physical laws.

Original philosophy is always "deviant" or even subversive.

There is a continuum between science and philosophy. As Fichte said (but did not practice), philosophy should be the science of sciences.

I have nothing to fear from serious social studies of science, and I hope that my philosophy will help progressive science policies while showing that the most modern views of science are ignorant and regressive, even if they are accompanied by a leftist-sounding rhetoric.

Even philosophies who have denounced pseudosciences like psychoanalysis, have condoned pseudoscientific economic theories like neoclassical microeconomics. It is far safer and easier to criticize Freud and Jung than to criticize Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, because the latter are backed by political movements whereas the former are not.

Few if any political philosophers have had the courage of tackling the Cold War. Even the best of them have kept silent or have stated some bromides glossing over the serious shortcomings of "our" side, such as racism, social injustice, extreme income disparities, the exploitation of the Third World, and environmental degradation.

In the scientific community you find competent teachers and original researchers, just as in the musical community you find many good performers but very few good composers.