I do not understand how can anyone with at least a BA in philosophy relate to the world and act as people that do not have one do. And I take it that the average western person lives a better more untroubled life. Why? Well, I live with my brother and from my philosophical studies at a top ten university in the world I (without being cynical) assure you that it is perfectly reasonable to doubt many core beliefs that anyone takes for granted and that make life not liveable.
I am deeply concerned about how does my mental representation of the world arise, whether a sufficient relation between the phenomenology of my conscious experience and a mind‐independent physical world can be established not only for metaphysical reasons but also for epistemic ones, hoping that it can allow me to know of the existence of an external world and make judgments of it.
EXAMPLE: Sitting down eating while talking to my brother. (challenging, I know)
I am thinking of the traditional philosophical questions such as the existence of an external world, God, free will and ethical values. Only with these four topics, which have been extremely controversial historically and still are and which are , very importantly, UNRESOLVED, I can show how horrible or badly weird can philosophy make life be (please don't argue the Primum vivere deinde philosophari as if in a way you have to suspend jugdment as you go about doing normal life things, thats just cheap) (I am assuming you take these beliefs to their ultimate consequence and therefore doubt what I am saying you should doubt).
Without these questions resolved, I cannot know whether when I have the experience of seeing and talking to my brother, there is actually someone else out there contributing to that experience that is independent of me (existence of external world), whether there is an omnipotent God that is vigilating my beliefs to possibly condemn me for thought‐crime if I am randomly thinking about something impure while talking to my brother (God) , whether I am actually deciding for myself what to tell him or I am determined to say something (free will), and whether the way I am treating him is ethical or not, or even whether there is anything of the matter to be said at all (moral realism/error theory/non-cognitivism etc etc etc).
The whole and only point is that I think the following line of thought is valid and sound:
1) These four philosophical issues, to name a few, are not resolved in a complete and definite manner
2) If taken seriously, these means that in the case of talking to my brother, I should doubt his existence, the freedom to tell him what I am telling him (if he exists), the control and judgment of a superpower over what I am thinking and the morality of what I am doing (this maybe in other cases since talking can be neutral) (but not necessarily of course)
3)If you have reasons to doubt these, which I think you clearly do, and you take them seriously, the very very very basic things of life become absolutely puzzling and just, i don't know the word, i don't thing there is a word, angst i guess, you become paralized, u should at least
4)Philosophers (professors etc) do not seem to behave as someone would expect from a person that cannot give a proof of the four issues addressed
4a) either they have definite answers, which I know they don't
4b) or they don't let the doubts affect their lives, which is contrary to what an intellectually capable human being (i suppose philosophers are of course) should do
So please any comments? Do you see my problem? Do you behave accordingly to what contemporary philosophy should make you behave?
Thanks very much, i am very sorry if its unclear and badly written and honestly hope any qualified philosophy professor answers.