It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead s

It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead say that any premise must be constructable from first premises – and if not we may not claim it is true. And that all arguments derived therefrom must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
What that means is that there are very few general rules in the universe, and that if premises can be constructed from first principles (effectively ‘laws’) then we can claim we testify truthfully.
The problem with most philosophy is that it’s orgins are in mathematics and as such are statemetns about words instead of statements about evidence.
The value of economics (neutral language) and law (demonstrated interest, imposition of costs, motive) are that they answer the questions that philosophical and theological discourse evades by every possible means – the truth.

That’s the short version. I’m in the middle of something. If you need further clarification let me know.

Reply addressees: @andrewkatz4