> But it’s reductive to the point of destructive if someone or something must always be on defense from existential questioning. > Yes, that’s the problem: bei

> But it’s reductive to the point of destructive if someone or something must always be on defense from existential questioning. > Yes, that’s the problem: being too clever by half is possibly making or reflective of a wider existential problem (or problems). I propose a hidden advantage Rationalists, science folks, and "critical thinkers" in general have over philosophy folks is that the above line can be magically drawn wherever the artist pleases, with a justification much more pleasing to the crowd. Science on the other hand can investigate things to their ultimate complexity with little complaint, and be cheered if not worshipped for it.