In response to Israel’s questions, “Do you feel as if we HAVE to label ourselves an agnostic, atheist, or theist? Do you think that sometimes in philosophy discussion, there is too much of a need to be technical and abiding?”

To answer the first question, NO. It shouldn’t matter what we believe in, if anything, and thus there should be no requirement to label ourselves. Labels just give us a reason to argue against one another. If we could get rid of the labels life would less stressful because many of the unnecessary arguments would be eliminated. Now I may be thinking to the extreme but without labels racism and segregation and stereotypes would also be technically eliminated, which would stop a lot of the fighting and other violence. But this would never happen because of how bound we are as a species to be constantly labeling everyone and everything.

To answer the second question, yes I agree. To me in philosophy there is no need to come up with a direct answer; it is okay for something to be deceiving. Philosophy is just options, thoughts, and beliefs, thus no one can ever be wrong (although some people will argue that one’s options can be wrong).  I also agree with the comment from your blog that many times it does seem like people are arguing just for the sake of argue not only in philosophical discussions but about anything. To me this isn’t necessary and at times it becomes annoying.

Question:

Why do you think we always feel the need to put ourselves in categories, and if someone isn’t in a category why are we so quick to place them in one??