Euclid intelligently began his presentation of geometry by declaring certain axioms, which he could then build upon for further discussion. Axioms could not be questioned, and they led logically to a consistent view of a universe of angles and lines. Eventually, mathematicians challenged the axioms and came up with completely different topologies.
We’d like to do the same for philosophy but, alas, the axioms are missing. We cannot even agree on what they should be, let alone what they are. And should we find valid axioms, which is probably impossible, we could never agree on their relative importance, nor their logical connections. Problems Euclid never faced.
Instead what we begin with are amorphous concepts. They are not only vague and slippery, they are also impossible to define otherwise. Even vague and slippery ideas are useful, of course, and we use them all the time _ joy, love, life, good.
Can we somehow use these vague foundations to construct something useful in real life? Or can it at least provide a means by which we can discuss our existence?
I note that I restarted this blog with the idea of a formal inquisition into these very topics. But I already find it impossible, and have shifted to approaching the questions of the philosophy of life by nibbling away at the edges with notions of my own. I hope they provide you with food for thought.