I do not believe the purpose of philosophy is or was to get everything right. The discipline is purely intellectual which implies that the problems are purely intellectual, which is to say that philosophy is concerned with coming to solutions for internal convictions or beliefs. The arguments are then formed from opposing beliefs, using the methods of philosophy to justify one's position, and what is true is that which is not contradictory or the argument doesn't contradict itself. Does this mean that philosophers are insane? Well, only if they speak incoherently and believe unintelligible things.

It is not exact. Many theories in the past were predictive and are considered false today.

@David Mo

This seems very simple, but it starts to get complicated when we go to less simple propositions and theories than that. Mainly, because in science we cannot test isolated propositions, but a complex of theories and facts. — David Mo

Then they are revised until complete accuracy is achieved. For example: the theory of magnetism implies the non-existence of magnetic monopoles, yet, if we are to follow subjectivity, it is possible that the contradictory existence of a magnetic monopole is at least possible, since we cannot predict with complete accuracy the nature of magnetism.

Obviously, all this disappoints the metaphysicist who is looking for absolute objectivity or certainty. A chimera. — David Mo

Metaphysical inquiry can lead to the theory of the undivided particle - the monad, which as we know from physics to be true, from observing elementary particles.

You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. Emotional reactions should not, in principle, be different. — Echarmion

Predicting a person's emotional reaction is different because it adheres to psychological phenomenons which do not physically exists as we perceive them to. This is where we oppose perception and adhere to reason. I may perceive a certain kind of fruit to be repulsive but is that fruit objectively repulsive? It is relative to the animal's desire to survive. The objective truth to that fruit is its chemical composition, which we may or may not care about.

All forms of communication are a visualization. This proof shows symmetry, equivalency, and negation, to lead to a trivial result.

I believe saying something is strictly associated with verbalization, and that written words are as much as showing as diagrams would be.

It is more accurate to say that any system of philosophy is based on experience first and foremost, with reason coming thereafter to justify one's reactionary conclusions. The reason why you use 'mood' to explain the existence philosophical pessimism is somewhat ambiguous to me.

Objectivity is possible through analysis, prediction, and success. Which is to say you analyze the properties of something, say a planet and its motion, you predict where it will be, and upon receiving data on its coordinates in space which align with your prediction then that is an objective truth. The same can be applied to any empirical science and to state otherwise would imply the observation to be merely by chance, yet, we can accurately predict the functionality of matter, alter to our will, which necessarily requires objective perception.

Relative perception exists within things that do not actually exist in the universe, such as suffering, horror, and other sensations which are not what we perceive them to be, but are psychological phenomenons relative to survival, i.e. Animalistic perceptions. For example, you cannot predict whether or not with complete accuracy if someone will have an adverse emotional reaction to something, since the essence of which does not exist.