Here is a list of questions I want to answer:
- Given that there is no inherent meaning to life, why are humans so driven to find it?
- Evolutionary biology may offer some insights, but then the question turns to which is the cause and which the effect?
- Is it merely a function of language and cognition?
- Other than circular logic arguments—namely, to posit ‘I prefer it that why’—, what is the logical justification for the exclusivity of property ownership if not the divine or nature vis-a-vis so-called workmanship ideal?
- Why do Libertarians frame the equality debate between opportunity and outcome and side-step equality of condition and ontological equality, the other sociological categories of equality, especially when the ‘all men are created equal‘ claim in ontological in the first place?
- What do do with the logical fallacy, Appeal to Tradition?
- How to get beyond Wittgenstein’s language problem? In my experience, most people accept and use language uncritically. Is everything just an arbitrary function of language? As language is an arbitrary construct, and meaning may change over time and dialect, how can we create a meaningful basis for argument?
- For example, when we say we expect a ‘just’ society, justice means different things to different people. A typical use is to equate ‘just’ to ‘right’, but as there is no absolute right, there is no absolute just. Moreover, people tend to invoke just and justice, when they mean ‘my way’ and ‘vengeance’, and so the frame is relative to the framer.
- What is the way to get past injecting concepts such as value and income into premises and arguments?
- Accepting for the moment the concept of ‘state’, what is the optimal number of states, and why have more than one?