I'm not sure I COMPLETELY follow you, but I think I do to a degree. Tell me what you think based on what I say, if you will.
If what you say and imply is true, then doesn't the philosophical therefore
of your own argument being meaningless? If one concludes that no conclusion is inevitable, then doesn't that conclusion itself also fall short of being inevitable? It seems to create a paradox to me. If what you say is true, then, is it possible to ever know it is with certainty? So is it untrue, or simply possibly true, but unknowable?
Also, a game like chess can allow for a situation to arise that is inevitable, such as one where having your king put in check forces you to protect it, by first establishing strict rules, as you say. These rules of the game are assumptions, or premises, that it is agreed the game will proceed by. Then, from these premises certain actions can become inevitable. Inevitability in chess only becomes possible by first accepting certain premises. Can't the situation in logic be exactly
the same? Can't the game of chess be viewed as an actual logic problem? If the premises of a logical argument are set up strictly, as they are in chess, then can't the same sort of inevitability be reached in a logical argument as it is in chess when you are forced to protect your king?
In chess we just accept the rules. They are what they are, and they have been around for a very long time. We don't really give much, if any, thought to questioning the premises/ assumptions/ rules, we just play it. In logical arguments however, we almost always give considerable thought to questioning the premises. Well, we could do this with chess too, and would realize that the game only creates a closed system by complete acceptance of the premises.
In the end, I think we reach the point of recognizing a Cartesian skepticism, with the conclusion that nothing can be held to be certainly true without acceptance of certain assumptions first, except for the existence of one's own mind. The conclusion that one's own consciousness exists would then be the only philosophical therefore
that can "mean" anything. (using "mean" here in the same sense as you have in your final sentence)
So what do you think? Am I hot, cold... lukewarm? Did I get the point but make a mistake in my reasoning or just say something that you disgaree with?