My old college campus had maps South-oriented to have the main entrance at the top, but then most across campus were physically East or West-facing. So you had to mentally flip the map-orientation, then 90° your physical position to find your bearings. It was so needlessly confusing.

The truth-statement that all truths can be empirically verified is itself empirically unverifiable.

That does not undermine empiricism, but it does show its reliance on truths outside its own toolbox. Science is instrumental to knowledge. But its own methodological scaffolding goes beyond science itself. To know that we can know anything, an epistemology is necessary. Every scientist relies in someway on truth-values outside scientific observation to interpret their data. The basic question, "what is truth?" points us to empirical reasoning, but cannot itself be answered by empiricism. I dare anyone to try.

Edited to improve clarity.

This is very interesting, and similar to a project I am working out myself. I hope to give this a closer read soon, and a more thorough response.

In the meantime, are you familiar with Emmanuel Levinas? I'd be interested in hearing your response to him. He presents an ontological model of ethics similar to yours, but where freedom is supplanted by responsibility.

To Levinas, ethics comes implicitly written into the event of encountering the Other. The fact of my existence is itself an imposition on the Other: in so far as my existence effects the Other, I am responsible. The other's existence stirs me to a moral accountability. This responsibility, in turn, becomes a meaning for my own existence. "ethics, rooted in responsibility, is the node of our subjectivity, tying us to reality." In other words, my being a subject in the world is a result of encountering the Other, who not only makes me responsible, but also makes me conscious of my own Self.

I read about that. Classy guy.

"The only human words that the parrot could say, and which at times sounded quite comical, were "Come now, let us be human. Let us be human..." All the rest of his chatter made as little sense as the twittering of the canary."

--The Galoshes of Fortune

I now must go write a hit Broadway musical about the untold Kierkegaard-HC Andersen rivalry. Starring John C. Reilly (Andersen) and Paul Giamatti (Kierkegaard).

The moral of the story: sexual repression makes you weird.

For Indiana: At the very least, he proves the existence of some kind of supernatural forces, if not the Judeo-Christian God specifically. He witnesses a shaman tear a man's heart out. He meets an immortal crusader with magical murdering cups, and Soviet psychics. Anyone who remains a "healthy skeptic" after any one of these is just in denial.

Elm Street: So Freddie Krueger goes to church? haha