Number 1 seems most successful/compelling subsection, number 2 somewhat so. Number 0 not really. Number 3 depends on 0, 1, and 2, and so 0 is its weakest link.
Despite the appeal of only having to use one form to justify foundational arguments to get to higher ones, I think this shows a downside. You took a tool and used it in a case perfectly well (case number 1), but doing just as well in other cases got different results.
I think this way of thinking is no more or less than a good tool in the thought toolbox, and you should think about distinguishing cases in which it works well from those in which it doesn’t, and finding other tools that also work well at the level of justification that you seem to be most interested in, the one with as few assumptions as possible.
This means that any complete theory will need either a different way of thinking/assumptions/whatever that is more universal, or a combination of this type where it woks plus a different type where that different type works.
Number 1 seems most successful/compelling subsection, number 2 somewhat so. Number 0 not really. Number 3 depends on 0, 1, and 2, and so 0 is its weakest link.
Despite the appeal of only having to use one form to justify foundational arguments to get to higher ones, I think this shows a downside. You took a tool and used it in a case perfectly well (case number 1), but doing just as well in other cases got different results.
I think this way of thinking is no more or less than a good tool in the thought toolbox, and you should think about distinguishing cases in which it works well from those in which it doesn’t, and finding other tools that also work well at the level of justification that you seem to be most interested in, the one with as few assumptions as possible.
This means that any complete theory will need either a different way of thinking/assumptions/whatever that is more universal, or a combination of this type where it woks plus a different type where that different type works.