Its more than things being "hard". Its about the nature of the questions philosophers try and answer.
Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason has those 4 quadrants of "knowing". A priori vs posteriori. Synthetic vs analytic. Its literally a CRITIQUE of how far pure reason can take us. In the area much of philosophy dances in, pure reason simple cant take us very far!
I'm generally interested in philosophy relative to most normal people as opposed to philosophers, and, to normal people, there are many very real questions that are worth answering, including those relating to meaning.
Those questions seem like they can be summarized as "What is going on, what should I do, and why?"
> Finding "a" reason to live matters far more than finding "the" reason to live. Would we rather be happy or would we rather be right?
This framing seems strange to me.
When you make this statement you already make a claim: that the reason to live is to seek happiness.
Kant and his Critique of Pure Reason has those 4 quadrants of "knowing". A priori vs posteriori. Synthetic vs analytic. Its literally a CRITIQUE of how far pure reason can take us. In the area much of philosophy dances in, pure reason simple cant take us very far!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_dis...
Finding "a" reason to live matters far more than finding "the" reason to live. Would we rather be happy or would we rather be right?
I like this quote attributed to Kant: "Rules for happiness: something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for".