Our topic today is philosophy. That's rather broad. Really we are discussing a philosophical approach or methodology. To be completely fair we aren't really discussing, the truth is closer to me pontificating and you reading but let's ignore that semantic issue for the time being. Back to the point. At UC Davis and most other institutions teaching philosophy, the fundamental message given to students is to go with their gut feeling. When an argument goes against your gut you are supposed to analyze it carefully until you find some fault with it. When you want to assert a new argument on an issue you first assess your gut feeling and then try to craft an argument in support of it. Here's the problem; humans are fundamentally irrational and illogical beings. We have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that our gut instincts are philosophically reliable or that they are likely to lead us to the truth of a matter. It seems to me that the best way to reach truth is to start by erasing all prujudices and heuristics, then start from first principles. Without throwing emotion or bias into the mix it would be possible to craft cold, rational, analytical philosophy arguments without measuring the outcomes against some inherently flawed instinct. This seems to me the ideal that rational beings should aspire to. Only by throwing out prejudgements is it possible to move forward with original ideas and free our minds from the constraints of the familiar.
