Eliza asked:

To the person answering our questions:

What if one of those questions shatters your set of beliefs? Can't this happen? May I assume you like
losing your 'identity', you have no beliefs? Is it that your beliefs are so fixed they can't be shattered
(being so absolute, not questioning, doesn't make you a philosopher). Or do you like shattering your
beliefs? (Suicide could be better than this constant self-torture. Is it the self-destructive tendency
within? Where does it emerge from?) Or you want to ensure by all means that all philosophic
attempts to shatter you fail? (how selfish, struggling to prove you're a tolerant person knowing the
truth but forgiving us for your ignorance). What are you anyway?

Sorry. If this seems like an attack, feel free to assume anything for my motives, don't answer me and
I'll assume one of the above (after all who'd care what a complete stranger from anywhere in the
world thinks?). Well if you have an answer for me, I'm longing to hear it (something about me: I like
straight answers and not avoiding the subject!). If I'm in for a serious mind-attack, be my guest...

============

I have been thinking about this for a week now. Before I start - just so that you feel safe! - I want you
to know that I don't go in for 'serious mind attacks'. That belongs to a different universe from the one I
inhabit. We are all students of philosophy here. In philosophy, you attack the argument, not the
person. (I realize that this will be a novel idea to some people.)

First, some necessary background. How did Ask a Philosopher start? Back in July last year, it was
just an idea that came to me. I knew that if things didn't go well I could always pull the plug. Now, of
course, I can no longer do that. The page is too well established, with questions coming in from all
four corners of the globe. I have to stay to face the music. And the questions have been getting
harder!

Let's look at some of your options.

What if one of those questions shatters your set of beliefs? Can't this happen? We all have beliefs
that we cling to. Even the die-hard atheist or nihilist. There is a children's joke which goes, 'I'm glad I
don't like spinach, because if I did, I'd eat it - and it tastes disgusting!' The atheist can't bear the
thought that their resolve to disbelieve might weaken. The theist can't bear the thought that their faith
might falter. The two cases are parallel. When it comes to foundational beliefs, beliefs that shape, and
give sense to our lives, we are all in the same predicament. However carefully you build your boat,
there is no absolute guarantee that it cannot be capsized.

Giving up one's previously held beliefs can be an occasion for joy, or sorrow. Perhaps you will be
surprised to learn that there are one-time atheists, who reluctantly embrace theism with sorrow and
foreboding, just as there are one-time theists who embrace atheism with joy and a sense of liberation.

May I assume you like losing your 'identity', you have no beliefs?Philosophers love to play Devil's
Advocate These pages provide the perfect opportunity for me to do so. If you ask me to argue the
case for mind-body dualism, I will argue the case for mind-body dualism. If you ask me to argue the
case for materialism, I will argue the case for materialism. This is not sophistry. Investigating
arguments, looking for flaws, looking for ways in which they might be strengthened against
objections, is a way of gaining philosophical understanding. A philosopher doesn't always have to be
defending their own views.

One of the greatest joys in studying philosophy is submerging oneself in the works of a great
philosopher. It is the advice I give serious students who want to deepen their grasp of the subject.
Choose one philosopher and study their major works. For a while one loses one's own identity. But at
some point you have to come up for air, or suffocate. It is philosophical understanding that one is
after, not someone to follow.

Do you like shattering your beliefs? Or you want to ensure by all means that all philosophic attempts
to shatter you fail? How can I get across the idea that these are not alternatives? Let's say I have a
theory. It doesn't matter about what. A considerable investment of time and mental energy was
involved in coming to that theory. Perhaps years of my life. So, naturally, I want to protect my
investment. Objections are welcomed because they give the opportunity, in refuting them, to
demonstrate the strength of the theory.

Suppose one of these objections convinces me? That can always happen. I lose my investment, I am
wiped out. But in its place I have something more precious. I have hold of the truth (as I now believe,
but this qualification is redundant because it goes without saying!) instead of falsehood. That is a net
gain, not a loss.

What are you anyway? I do philosophy. This is an example of what I do. I do not know of any other
people doing philosophy who have thought of doing it this way, in a Glass House, but I have, and it
works for me. Read the Glass House notebook, read these pages and draw your own conclusions.

Geoffrey Klempner