It may not be exactly for the reasons she gives, but I think her instinct is correct to reduce these metaphysical questions into minutiae. To “unanswer” them by

It may not be exactly for the reasons she gives, but I think her instinct is correct to reduce these metaphysical questions into minutiae. To “unanswer” them by forcing them to conform to her empirical observation without any additional inquiry, because that inquiry quite frankly is a waste of time (the important caveat being unless you’re making the inquiry for its own sake and therefore enjoying it). It’s a deeply pragmatic approach. It reminds me of the Buddhist parable about the poison arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow "‘Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first.’ Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.”