Its more than things being "hard". Its about the nature of the questions philosophers try and answer.

Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason has those 4 quadrants of "knowing". A priori vs posteriori. Synthetic vs analytic. Its literally a CRITIQUE of how far pure reason can take us. In the area much of philosophy dances in, pure reason simple cant take us very far!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_dis...

Finding "a" reason to live matters far more than finding "the" reason to live. Would we rather be happy or would we rather be right?

I like this quote attributed to Kant: "Rules for happiness: something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for".

I'm generally interested in philosophy relative to most normal people as opposed to philosophers, and, to normal people, there are many very real questions that are worth answering, including those relating to meaning.

Those questions seem like they can be summarized as "What is going on, what should I do, and why?"

> Finding "a" reason to live matters far more than finding "the" reason to live. Would we rather be happy or would we rather be right?

This framing seems strange to me.

When you make this statement you already make a claim: that the reason to live is to seek happiness.

Seems like you did get something out of all that time you wasted on philosophy. :)

The difference here is that physics has an established set of rules to define what is a meaningless question and what is a meaningful question. There is a reason metaphysics is not physics.

This perspective is a bit uncharitable towards metaphysics - there are rules in that game as well. You're still not allowed to ask logically inconsistent questions or twist words into nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

For instance, saying things like "Meaningness is neither subjective nor objective" sets off alarms in my mind - that's quite the claim! If you're making that claim, you better be well prepared to provide a rigorous explanation of what you mean or be laughed out of the room by people who understand what those words mean. The author chooses to just throw a couple of pseudo-intellectual sentences together and then say "it's obvious!" and move on.

Another example of this is when people say that determinism and free will are consistent with one another - it's a big claim and it takes some work to explain. A few people actually do this well, but it's because they resort to really really rigorous explanations and models of how "will" works in people - taken in part from everyday experience. Those who provide shoddy accounts of this or just say "yeah whatever let's move on" are no more metaphysicians than is the person who says "what if electrons are the particles that cause love, man??"

I'm curious as to what set of rules you're referring to?

I assume this is a statement to provoke thought, and surely not a literal inability to understand his context.

The difference is that something like "meaning of existence" can never be defined or even predicted since it depends on the individual, since it's only relevant within the fictitious ramblings of a single mind. An insane persons meaning could never match a rule since it would be capable of defining its own fictitious rules, which would be equally relevant.

Physics doesn't depend on a mind or understanding. It will "be" regardless.

Or at least that's how I see it.

It's just something I've never seen outlined like that. That makes it sound like there's a committee out there that decides what questions can be asked.

I've been reading a lot about physics lately, and many things are quite... out there... and I felt like I had to go back and sort of rewire my brain a few times.

Some physics questions are simple enough: "What happens if we do this?" But some seem less tractable, such as what does it mean for something to be the last level of "matter", what does "one dimensional string" really mean, why is the speed of light the maximum, etc., and a lot of theories come from what seems to be philosophical intuition more than number crunching.

I'd be very curious to see a strict definition of "questions physics scientists are allowed to ask".

> The difference is that something like "meaning of existence" can never be defined or even predicted since it depends on the individual, since it's only relevant within the fictitious ramblings of a single mind.

Funny, I can't agree with that. That to me sounds like you're just pushing your own opinion. I fully believe that there is such a thing as meaning of existence, but I may be using a very mundane definition of "meaning". Perhaps such questions seem undefinable because someone forgot to define the word "meaning" again.

I believe it's all physics in the end, one is just a lot better understood than the other, so the other looks like you can't nail it down and therefore isn't "real". But just like with physics, it leads somewhere, and predictions can be made...