This is what it all comes down to for me: which philosophy best explains my basic experience as a human being? I wasn't an atheist for very long, maybe I never was a real one, but I definitely set my belief in God aside for a while and tried to live as if naturalism were true. I could never make sense of mind, meaning, or morality in a way that would accommodate my basic experience as a human being. (I am genuinely fascinated by those who can!) It was around this time that I took a night class in Philosophy 101 wherein I read Questions That Matter by Ed L Miller. There I discovered Plato and "big tent Platonism" as you call it. Around this time I also read Ten Philosophical Mistakes by Adler. Long story short, I converted to Catholicism a couple years later in 2002. Love your work!
Emotional reasoning often fails to convince in the long term, as it can be supplanted by other emotionally driven arguments that change our initial beliefs. However, emotional reasoning can never replace logical reasoning.
Many truths are not immediately obvious or self-evident. The nature of the creator of physical things is not necessarily clear or intuitively true. We inherently have doubts about the nature of existence.
Why is this the case? Because doubt is what gives existence its meaning. There must be at least some degree of uncertainty.
We can arrive at the meaning of existence, but we will encounter many choices along the way. I deliberately use the metaphor of a fork in the road, as many decisions will present us with either/or scenarios. For every proposition A, either A is true or not A is true, and these two options together encompass all possibilities. For example, physical existence is either infinite or has a finite beginning.
I have encountered this idea in several discussions and have yet to see a valid counterargument.
This is from something on the internet yesterday. It may be interesting since Bertrand Russell is occasionally mentioned on this site as relevant to brute facts.
"Fifty-five years ago this week, a British philosopher named Bertrand Russell passed away in Wales. The guy had some interesting insights, one of which is paramount: "People's opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people, is a secondary consideration."
That bit of wisdom is rising in America, as stimulated by President Trump. His supporters tend to accept whatever he does, while his detractors refuse to acknowledge any worthiness on his part."
Russell serves as a prime example of someone whose personal opinions, despite being misleading, provided him with comfort. He promoted ideas that lacked any basis in facts or logic, showing a lack of genuine interest in truth, much like many other atheists.
This is what it all comes down to for me: which philosophy best explains my basic experience as a human being? I wasn't an atheist for very long, maybe I never was a real one, but I definitely set my belief in God aside for a while and tried to live as if naturalism were true. I could never make sense of mind, meaning, or morality in a way that would accommodate my basic experience as a human being. (I am genuinely fascinated by those who can!) It was around this time that I took a night class in Philosophy 101 wherein I read Questions That Matter by Ed L Miller. There I discovered Plato and "big tent Platonism" as you call it. Around this time I also read Ten Philosophical Mistakes by Adler. Long story short, I converted to Catholicism a couple years later in 2002. Love your work!
Logic and evidence prevail over everything.
Emotional reasoning often fails to convince in the long term, as it can be supplanted by other emotionally driven arguments that change our initial beliefs. However, emotional reasoning can never replace logical reasoning.
Many truths are not immediately obvious or self-evident. The nature of the creator of physical things is not necessarily clear or intuitively true. We inherently have doubts about the nature of existence.
Why is this the case? Because doubt is what gives existence its meaning. There must be at least some degree of uncertainty.
We can arrive at the meaning of existence, but we will encounter many choices along the way. I deliberately use the metaphor of a fork in the road, as many decisions will present us with either/or scenarios. For every proposition A, either A is true or not A is true, and these two options together encompass all possibilities. For example, physical existence is either infinite or has a finite beginning.
I have encountered this idea in several discussions and have yet to see a valid counterargument.
This is from something on the internet yesterday. It may be interesting since Bertrand Russell is occasionally mentioned on this site as relevant to brute facts.
"Fifty-five years ago this week, a British philosopher named Bertrand Russell passed away in Wales. The guy had some interesting insights, one of which is paramount: "People's opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people, is a secondary consideration."
That bit of wisdom is rising in America, as stimulated by President Trump. His supporters tend to accept whatever he does, while his detractors refuse to acknowledge any worthiness on his part."
Russell serves as a prime example of someone whose personal opinions, despite being misleading, provided him with comfort. He promoted ideas that lacked any basis in facts or logic, showing a lack of genuine interest in truth, much like many other atheists.