I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true.

Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact.

—“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath

My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods.

As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth.

The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel.  

Science won.