My recommendation is to experience life and not try to learn about it from studying other people's lives. Some way to do this is to find sports, arts, hobbies, martial arts (of various types), etc. that will give you more insights into life, and from this you can build your own philosophy. You can read about life in literature and philosophy books and gain interesting insights, but without your own experiences, it is practically meaningless.

As for truth, forget about it. As far as I can see, it is a marketing gimmick to attract people to paying money for it. No different than religions that offer the same.

I've hit a wall recently, in that I can't honestly accept anything to be true but I'm also too early into studying philosophy to remedy this. — Bryan

You might get various and contradictory answers from people here or elsewhere, and still not be able to accept any of them. It seems likely, because all you will get is some stuff being said without authority. But why should this appear as a brick wall? You put up a post, and I put up a reply, and I for one don't have more than a hazy idea of how it gets from you to me and back to you and all the other folks who read and comment. But that doesn't slow me down as much as a brick wall. I take a best guess and whatever seems like good advice at the time, and proceed with due caution, prepared to learn and change. I've been doing that for 65 years now, and plan to continue a few more years. And I would say that it is certainty that has the effect of a brick wall more than uncertainty.

The problem is that I've found it very difficult to operate in everyday life because of a lack of answers to these questions -- answers which would make up a person's core belief system.

I feel as though I can't go live life without having some sort of belief system(I would even count denying everything as a belief system), but with that premise, I would have to wait a very long time before I can go live life.

So the real question is:

Although I can't be sure of it right now, there is likely value in living life. So how do I bring myself to live life right now without having any certainty that anything is true? How do I make myself do things which seem so arbitrary when I feel lost in the infinite. — Bryan

The issue I see here is that you're wanting a foundationalist structure of belief when there in fact is none. Phenomenologically, we do not "live" by beliefs. I do not pick up my coffee cup because I "believe" the coffee cup "exists", and because I have a belief in what "existence" amounts to. I pick up the cup because I'm already enmeshed in the world. I do things habitually, I "know" objects through their use, not through their theoretical existence. I have no need for beliefs to get things done.

If you take a Wittgensteinian approach to this, it's not that philosophy "answers" these questions but that philosophy "dissolves" these questions. The aim of Wittgensteinian philosophy is to get rid of philosophical problems by showing them to be non-problems. This "anxiety" of having a foundation-less epistemology is to be remedied by absolving one of the need for a foundation in the first place.

I think you have too much faith in those philosophical writers and academics. They aren't qualified to tell you how it is. Remember that they don't agree with eachother anyway. It would be much better to not wade any deeper into their morass.

I personally feel that, now and historically, most Western academic philosophers have their head up their _ _ _.

There needn't be a purpose, other than "play", "fun", whatever you like, etc.

Obviously it's necessary to get by somehow. Obviously one wants to act ethically,un-harmingly, and kindly, or at least not act unethically. Other than those considerations, there's no purpose or need for one.

But you were talking about explanations too. Metaphysics is an interesting subject, but one shouldn't feel that one needs a complete metaphysical explanation before they can live their life. A person's life comes first, and is central to some metaphysicses.

Non-Realist metaphysicses (like the one that I propose) are built around, start from, the individual and his/her experience.

But I don't suggest dropping metaphysics--just regard it as an interest, rather than as a requirement. You don't know all of physics, but that doesn't stop you from living. ...or from studying some physics if you want to. Likewise metaphysics. In fact, no metaphysics can be proven anyway.

In fact, regarding the not-knowing--Isn't that part of the fun of metaphysics? What you don't know is interesting. That's true in metaphysics and in physics.

We've been in this life for so long that we're used to it. But:

That this life started is remarkable, surprising.

Obviously you're interested in explanations, and it seems to me that metaphysics is the kind of philosophy that offers explanation..

Some might criticize me if I point to a particular metaphysics in this reply, and accuse me of using this topic as a promotional opportunity. But I claim that, because you're interested in explanation, mentioning a specific metaphysics is called-for in these replies.

What characteristics would a good metaphysics have?

1. For one thing, I suggest that it should be Non-Realist. It should start with you, your experience. ...as opposed to positing an objectively-existent world out there. That's because your own experience is what is evident, what you're sure of, where you start from, experienced, not assumed.

2. Secondly, I suggest that a metaphysics should be, must be, parsimonious. In the late 1200s or early 1300s, William of Ockham suggested his Principle of Parsimony. Minimize assumptions. The best metaphysics would be one that doesn't make any assumptions or posit any brute-facts. There is such a metaphysics.

Materialism is popular, but the fundamentally, objectively existent physical world that it posits is a brute-fact.

You've probably heard of the question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

A completely parsimonious metaphysics avoids that question, because it's inevitable. Something inevitable is its own explanation.

What's inevitable? Abstract logical facts.

Several physicists, including Michael Faraday (1844), Frank Tippler (1970s or '80s), and Max Tegmark (currently) have pointed out that this physical world is consistent with mathematical and logical relational structure alone, and that there's no reason to believe in the supposed objectively-existent "stuff" of Materialism.

They're right.

I suggest that this physical world (and infinitely many like it) consists of a system of inter-referring "if-then" facts. Abstract logical facts, mathematical theorems, physical laws.

A physical law is a hypothetical fact about a relation among some physical quantity-values. That hypothetical relational fact, and the some of the phyisical quantity-values that it's about are parts of the "if" clause of some if-then facts.

The "then" clause of those if-then facts consist of others of those physical quantity-values that that hypothetical law relates.

A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if" clause includes (but isn't limited to) a set of axioms. ...arithmetical or geometric.

So the whole thing is a hypothetical system of inter-referring if-then facts.

Is any of it real? None of it--neither the whole system nor its component hypotheticals--is objectively real or objectively factual.

Why should there be such a system? How could there not be? It doesn't have or need any reality, meaning, or existence in any context other than its own. ...its own inter-referring context.

That's our physical world. And there of course are infinitely many other hypothetical possiblity-worlds.

Where I differ from what Tippler and Tegmark say, is that I put it in terms of your individual life-experience possibility-story. That's really what this hypothetical inter-referring system is. ...a life-experience possibility-story. The possibility-world that we live in is just secondary, as the setting for your life-experience possibility story. That life-experience story, and you its Protagonist, is what's primary.

Why are you in this world? Well, there's a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story about the hypothetical person that you are. You're (the essential) part of this hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. It's the story that has you as Protagonist.

That metaphysics could be called Eliminative Ontic Structural Non-Realism.

I call it "Skepticism", because it's skepticism itself. Complete rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-facts is skeptical.

Michael Ossipoff

Flee from this place. These decadent armchair windbags will be your downfall (or consummate marriage).

Is language an adequate vehicle to ask these questions and to provide answers? — Bryan

It is, and there isn't any other vehicle. So stay on and ride it.

The reason why I'm writing this post is that I've hit a wall recently, in that I can't honestly accept anything to be true but I'm also too early into studying philosophy to remedy this. — Bryan

You've gotten swept up in old word games, like, "How do I know I am real." OMG, I don't know the answer; maybe I don't exist!" That sort of nonsense.

My recommendation is to experience life and not try to learn about it from studying other people's lives. — Rich

Very good advice.

Here's a conundrum for you: Existence precedes essence. What the hell does THAT mean? "Basically, we exist first and then we do things that define ourselves and live our lives in whatever way we choose (and this determines our essence, and what it means to be a human being.)" (source: Google -- knows all, sees all...)

So, you have a life to live. (My guess is that you are a young guy, so you have much more life in front of you than behind you.) Live it. And as you live it, you will be engaged in that most important task, defining who you are. One defines who one is through interacting with others, making choices to do this and not that; how one works, plays, prays, preys, etc. What you choose to think about, what you choose to read and write, and so on.

Get to it and enjoy.

In relation to the people on this forum, I'm fairly new to philosophy. The reason why I'm writing this post is that I've hit a wall recently, in that I can't honestly accept anything to be true but I'm also too early into studying philosophy to remedy this. — Bryan

Do you accept as true that you don't accept anything as true? You couldn't possibly if you don't accept anything as true, so that itself can't be true, and you probably accept many many things as true.

My advice would be to not get too caught up in the need for meaning - no one has yet been able to prove that life has some grand meaning, so there's no use in actively chasing it.

Instead, focus on your basic biological needs - food, shelter, family, community, relationships, sleep, physical health - all of these will contribute positively to your mental state, and help you feel more like living, despite the lack of grand meaning or purpose.

My thoughts exactly. Solid response to OP

My advice would be to not get too caught up in the need for meaning - no one has yet been able to prove that life has some grand meaning, so there's no use in actively chasing it.

Instead, focus on your basic biological needs - food, shelter, family, community, relationships, sleep, physical health - all of these will contribute positively to your mental state, and help you feel more like living, despite the lack of grand meaning or purpose. — CasKev

Yes, that's what i was saying in the first part of my answer too.

But, because the OP was interested in explanations and the matter of what's real--a perfectly alright interest--I wanted to answer that part of the question too, by describing a completely parsimonious, difficult-to-criticize, metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Thanks.

what if the metaphysical elements relating to the evidence do not allow you to escape the current moment? Unfortunately the logical fallacy proven has shown Hume's theory to insufficiently describe this moment.

Can you give an example, I don't know what you mean.

quod erat demonstrandum

oky doky.

Although I can't be sure of it right now, there is likely value in living life. So how do I bring myself to live life right now without having any certainty that anything is true? How do I make myself do things which seem so arbitrary when I feel lost in the infinite. — Bryan

Maybe, have a think about the couple of billion people in the world who are struggling desperately to get some kind of foothold in a country that's worth living in. Then you can consider either giving your place to one of them, or figuring out what you can do to keep it. That should provide sufficient motivation whilst you sharpen up your Kant.

neverless, I still feel obliged to give you some supporting evidence to my statement.

A thought at a time, is how I'd go about it. If you really can't relax not knowing, then you're already on the path to do what you need to do, namely, to think. It's just a matter of not falling asleep now. From wherever you start to philosophise, it doesn't really matter, you'll be back there soon enough as long as you keep buying time to think or learn. I wouldn't expect, nor want, any sort of belief system any time soon however. For that you need to take a lot of things for granted, and you're, I assume, much too early in the game to start setting limits (I know I am, so maybe I'm contradicting myself, but whatever).

In order to keep going with life, just note that if you feel uncomfortable not knowing, then starting to understand should bring a bit of a reward with it. And what else are you going to do after all, if all is vanity? Not that you should try to stay away from side-tracks, like has been mentioned, but as long as you honestly feel good as you grow towards understanding, you shouldn't stop with it. And "towards understanding" is pretty vague intentionally. Just keep going for what you think it is, and you'll figure out the specifics. Everything else which seems arbitrary is just noise, just keep a good conscience and try to focus on getting to your ideal...

Or accept a ready-made belief system, what do I know anyway. To post or not to post, that is the question.

Flee from this place. These decadent armchair windbags will be your downfall (or consummate marriage). — Nils Loc

As visitors will notice, we have, as exemplified above, at this forum, a few people whose referentless angry-noises are a reminder of our grunt-animal evolutionary heritage.

Michael Ossipoff

As you will notice, we have, at this forum, a few people whose referentless angry-noises are a reminder of our grunt-animal evolutionary heritage. — Ossipoff

Oaaarghhhh! Oahooooooo...Ohhhhweeeee!

As visitors will notice, we have, as exemplified above, at this forum, a few people whose referentless angry-noises are a reminder of our grunt-animal evolutionary heritage. — Michael Ossipoff

Brilliant

unenlightened, a portion of your reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

What do you imagine knowing all of the answers feels like?
Why not just skip all the philosophising and enter that state directly?

I used to have the same feelings of being overwhelmed when studying mathematics. I felt the need to continually study complex proofs, as opposed to just simply accepting results at face value.

Nowadays I can't remember many proofs. I just drink alcohol and quote Wikipedia.