1. For a long time, philosophy has had to justify its mad attempt to talk about invisible essences. Take Hegel:

It is an error on the part of the philosophy of nature to attempt to face up to all phenomena; this is done in the finite sciences, where everything has to be reduced to general conceptions (hypotheses). In these sciences the empirical element is the sole confirmation of the hypothesis, so that everything has to be explained.

My question is: why is philosophy so obsessed with the invisible? With what transcends the “empirical element”? Is there a fear that a strictly empirical…