Coffee Shop Philosophy: A Chat with Kagg, Anderson, Descartes, James, and Singer.

[Me:] Mr. Anderson, I’d like to start off by saying that your book seemed to spark a fire within me. I have always been aware of my frustrations towards our nation and certain questionable beliefs, but your book really aroused some anger within me that I didn’t know I had. Personally, I think it’s okay to be angry. After reading your book, I feel like we SHOULD be angry. But I’d like to pick your brain a little more-- why do you feel that truth, facts, and reality matter?

[Anderson:] I don’t necessarily think that religion, belief systems, conspiracy theories, etc, are all misguided, but these things can be problematic if people go overboard with them. Truth, facts, and reality matter because without them, people’s thoughts, actions, and feelings--to them-- become just as true as facts. And we see that all the time in America-- people in a fantastical mindsets that over time have become more and more “normal” and widely accepted. These fantasies become a problem when we reject basic facts that are essential to our personal well-being, and our country as a whole. (FL 10)

[Kaag:] I agree, these frustrations are warranted. However, I like to focus on our “Pragmatic Fathers” point of view-- William James, for example. Truth, according to James, is verifiable through its correspondence to reality. In other words, on the basis of its practical consequences, on its ability to negotiate and enrich human experience. (AP 17)

[James:] Precisely! Truth is what works and what has a beneficial impact on our lives. Pragmatism is concerned with the “cash value” of a thought-- if nothing hangs on the answer, it doesn’t matter what you decide. (LH 164)

[Me:] You seem kind of quiet Rene. Do you agree or disagree?

[Descartes:] I can’t say that I agree. For the most part, I would describe myself as the opposite of the fantasyland American’s described in Anderson’s book. I don’t truly believe anything until I examine why I believe it. I don’t accept anything as true if there is even the slightest possibility that it isn’t. In this way of thinking, some beliefs become completely immune to skepticism. (LH 64)

[Singer:] I’m not sure I fully agree with that way of thinking Rene. I think that reality and beliefs aren’t always so black and white. Here’s a thought I’m sure a lot of people can agree on: intentionally killing someone is wrong. But in my opinion, there is a difference between killing someone simply because you don’t like them and euthanizing someone in an irreversible vegetative state. Truth, facts, and reality matter, but some realities, in my opinion, are grey areas. (LH 241)

[James:] The really vital question for us all is-- what is this world going to be? What is life eventually going to make of itself?

[Anderson:] As far as what is in store for us, I like to remain positive. I believe that we must do our duty in keeping our fact-based stance by making it as large and robust and attractive as possible for ourselves and our future generations. This world and particularly our nation can regain its national balance and composure. Thomas Jefferson once said, “You are entitled to your own opinions and your own fantasies, but not your own facts. Especially if your fantastical facts hurt people.” We can only hope that this is merely a phase and that in our future, more and more people will adopt this precedent (FL 444). 

[Kaag:] Determining life's worth is, in a very real sense, up to us. Our wills remain the decisive factor in making meaning in a world that continually threatens it. Our past does not have to control us. The risk that life is wholly meaningless is real, but so too is the reward: the ever-present chance to be largely responsible for its worth. (American Philosophy)

[James:] Abosultely. The appropriate response to our existential situation is not utter despair or suicide, but rather the repeated, ardent, yearning attempt to make good on life's tenuous possibilities. (American Philosophy)

[Singer:] I believe that we can create a better world based on the principle of consistency. We must treat similar cases in similar ways.We must constantly challenge widely held assumptions. By making arguments, by thinking hard about what we actually believe and how it is supported by facts, we might be able to reshape certain aspects of our future. (LH 244)

[Descartes:] The world must be more or less as we experience it. As I always say, “I think, therefore I am.” Much of what is wrong with the world is caused by misusing our minds by confusion, bad definition, and unconscious illogicality. If we divide large problems into small, understandable sections, we won’t get so muddled by certain questions. I am very optimistic about the progress we can make psychologically by using my methods. If we work hard enough at training and guiding our minds, we can eventually lead lives that we are better able to control and become more equipped in mastering our passions. (LH 65 and Descartes Youtube Video)

[Me:] While I agree with everyone, I agree the most with Anderson’s philosophy. I believe it applies to many modern concerns, and most importantly, highlights the fact that we are living in a nation that seems to be making important decisions based on their own reality-based facts. I think he is right in the sense that we need to remain hopeful, but I worry that if we don’t get a collective grasp on reality soon, our planet and our lives could face dire consequences.