Originally Posted by
bluefinger
Ugh... let me quote myself from another thread, in an attempt to clarify even further what I really think:
I keep the subjective separate from the objective, and I keep the subjective mostly to myself when I debate. I wanted to be the analytical voice for this thread, though subjectively, I'd probably experience similar things. I just come to different conclusions about them. I, however, don't use these as a basis for my arguments, because they are nothing but anecdotes.
I analyse, I'm sceptical, I reason, because the thought process is familiar and is reliable. I don't base my judgements on feelings and impulses (or at least, try not to).
You ask for a balance, but like I said before, I take a naturalistic viewpoint on things. This world and the universe that it is surrounded by are by far the most awe-inspiring and wonderful things. I just don't see why you have to add extra layers upon something that is already just fine as it is. Why fix it if it ain't broke? You get what I'm saying?