[Philosophical Dialogue] Is it possible for humans to live without providing reasons for everything?

Humans have a fundamental tendency to seek "reasons" or "meaning" for their actions, beliefs, and even life itself.

However, through philosophical inquiry, it is suggested that it is not necessarily required to seek reasons for every phenomenon; rather, it is possible to lead a "life without reasons," which may lead to a freer and more powerful way of living.

This way of life can find support in diverse intellectual traditions, such as the difficulty of "justification" in epistemology, the "teleology" of Adlerian psychology, and the ideas of practical philosophy.

Therefore, I will first analyze the human endeavor of seeking "reasons" from a philosophical perspective, particularly through the discussion of "justification" in epistemology.

Next, I will clarify the structural problems inherent in the question of "the meaning of life" and explain why philosophy approaches this question with caution.

Building on that, I would like to present the effectiveness of groundless confidence, the departure from causal theory, and the importance of practice as an ideological foundation for becoming free from "reasoning."

Based on these considerations, I aim to outline concrete guidelines for practicing a "life without reasons" as an intermediate evaluation.

It is a way of life that shifts from the abstract exploration of "why" to the concrete practice of "how to live," accepting intuition and contingency, and affirming the very act of "being."

1. Philosophical inquiry into "reasons" and "justification"

It is common to think that when humans believe in something or act, there is a "reason" behind it.

In philosophy, especially in the field of epistemology, this "reason" has been closely related to the concept of "justification."

A belief being "justified" refers to a state where there is a sufficient reason to hold that belief.

(1) The chain of beliefs and the problem of infinite regress

Many of our beliefs are supported by other beliefs.

For example, the belief that "tomorrow is trash collection day" is based on other beliefs such as "tomorrow is Tuesday" and "my household's trash collection is every Tuesday."

In this way, the justification of beliefs forms an inferential chain.

However, when we trace this chain back, we face a serious problem.

That is, if we assume that "all beliefs need to be justified by other beliefs," the chain of justification continues infinitely, and no belief ultimately loses its foundation (infinite regress).

To resolve this "dilemma of inferential justification," two main theories have been proposed in philosophy.

Foundationalism:

The view that the chain of justification ends in 'basic beliefs' that do not require further justification by other beliefs.

For example, beliefs based on direct sensations, such as 'I am feeling pain right now,' fall into this category.

These beliefs are considered to be justified directly, without the need for inference.

Coherentism:

The view that beliefs are not supported by individual foundations, but are justified by the coherence of the entire belief system (i.e., that it is free of contradictions and that the beliefs support one another).

A web metaphor is often used, suggesting that the strength of the whole increases as each belief is interconnected.

While these theories are sophisticated models for providing 'reasons' or 'grounds' for beliefs, they also illustrate how complex and non-obvious the structure of the 'reasons' we consider solid actually is.

(2) The instability of 'justification': The Gettier problem

Furthermore, Edmund Gettier demonstrated that 'justified true belief' does not necessarily equate to 'knowledge' (the Gettier problem).

This is the observation that there are cases where something a person believes for a valid reason happens to be true by coincidence, yet cannot be said to be 'known'.

This problem cast doubt on the very role of 'reasons' and 'justification' in supporting beliefs and had a major impact on the philosophical world.

As such, even the 'justification' of individual beliefs faces many philosophical challenges.

Seeking 'reasons' for the grand subject of life as a whole, therefore, involves even greater difficulties.

(3) The structural problem of the question 'meaning of life'

The question 'What am I living for?' is a fundamental question that many people ask at least once.

However, professional philosophers tend to avoid asking 'What is the meaning of life?'

This is because it is considered an extremely inappropriate question that is not formulated in a way that can withstand philosophical analysis.

2. Ambiguity of the question

The question, 'Is it possible for humans to live without justifying everything?' contains several structural problems.

(1) Lack of a subject

It is ambiguous whose meaning of life is being questioned.

The answer might be completely different depending on whether it refers to 'humanity,' 'Japanese people,' or 'myself.'

(2) Category mistake

Thinking of the 'meaning of life' as something that can be discovered, like looking up the definition of a word in a dictionary, may itself be a 'category mistake.'

Just as it is meaningless to ask for the color of a trumpet's sound, 'life' may not belong to a category that can be assigned a dictionary definition.

(3) Confusion with happiness or morality

A 'meaningful life' is often equated with a 'happy life' or a 'morally correct life,' but these do not necessarily coincide.

Some people may contribute to society and be happy yet fail to find meaning in life (skepticism), while others may find meaning in a life that is unhappy and immoral.

Because of these problems, philosophy does not ask 'What is the meaning of life?' directly, but rather analyzes the question itself and works to refine it into a more precise inquiry.

3. Liberation from justification: The possibility of a life without reasons

If the pursuit of 'reasons' or 'grounds' is accompanied by difficulty, is it possible to live in a way that is free from them?

Various schools of thought suggest that such a possibility exists.

(1) The strength of groundless confidence

We often seek "reasons" or "grounds" to have confidence.

However, "confidence based on grounds" carries the vulnerability of being lost the moment those grounds collapse.

For example, if you have confidence because you possess a specific skill, your confidence will waver if that skill is no longer effective.

In contrast, "groundless confidence" can be said to be invincible in a sense, because there are no grounds to be lost in the first place.

This suggests a way of self-affirmation that does not depend on justification.

(2) Adlerian psychology's "teleology"

Alfred Adler's psychology rejects "etiology" and proposes "teleology".

This is the idea that human behavior is not determined by past "causes" (such as trauma), but is chosen to achieve future "goals".

For example, while etiology thinks, "I cannot build interpersonal relationships because I was abused in the past," teleology interprets it as, "You are bringing up the memory of being abused to achieve the goal of not wanting to build relationships with others."

This philosophy frees us from the shackles of past "reasons."

By perceiving that the reason for behavior lies not in the past, but in one's own choices here and now, people can live their lives proactively.

(3) Philosophy as practice

There is a view that philosophy is not just about analyzing and memorizing the thoughts of predecessors, but about "practicing" the philosophy one has discovered for oneself.

Viktor Frankl stated, "Life is asking us questions, and we must answer them not by playing with words, but by our actions."

The meaning of life is not found in abstract speculation, but emerges in the accumulation of practice—how we act and how we respond in specific, daily situations.

This way of thinking places value on living out one's unique, concrete life itself, rather than searching for universal "reasons."

(4) Acceptance and Creation of Nihilism

In the modern era, where the transcendent 'meaning of life' once provided by religion and other sources has been lost, the idea that life has no essential meaning or purpose (nihilism) has spread.

However, this does not necessarily mean despair.

The existentialist approach suggests that precisely because there is no meaning, humans have the freedom to 'create' meaning for themselves.

Alternatively, a path opens up where one stops seeking meaning or purpose altogether and simply lives for the sake of 'being,' treating life itself as the purpose.

4. Guidelines for Practicing a 'Life Without Reasons'

Based on the philosophical considerations above, specific approaches for living without being bound by justifications are presented below.

(1) From 'Why' to 'How to Live'

Instead of continuing to ask abstract 'whys' (reasons), shift the focus to concrete practice: 'How do I live here and now?'

The accumulation of daily choices and actions shapes a person's 'life' as a result.

What is important is not just thinking, but the practice itself of taking a concrete step forward.

(2) Respecting Intuition, Impulse, and Curiosity

Trust intuition and impulses—such as 'I'm just interested' or 'this is exciting'—more than logical reasons or evidence.

Reasons are things discovered later; they may not be necessary at the beginning.

In an era of rapid change and uncertainty (the VUCA era), curiosity about the unknown, rather than 'reasons' based on past experience or data, can be the driving force that opens up new paths.

(3) Acceptance of Contingency and 'Flexibility'

Do not exclude failures or errors as negative things, but possess a 'flexibility' that accepts things including them.

Just as scientific technology and the evolution of life were the result of countless failures, it is precisely within the contingency of things not going according to plan that unexpected discoveries and richness can emerge.

Instead of seeking meaning or reasons for everything, accepting meaningless coincidence lightens the heart.

(4) Unconditional self-affirmation

Break free from conditional self-evaluation such as 'because I can do this' or 'because I have that,' and affirm yourself without reasons or grounds.

The sense of superiority gained through comparison with others does not lead to true happiness.

You are the subject living your own life, and there is no need to seek a reason for your existence itself.

5. Interim Evaluation

Living without justifying everything is not only philosophically possible for humans, but can also be a path to realizing a more autonomous and resilient way of life in the modern age.

As epistemology shows, the 'reasons' that support our beliefs are by no means self-evident, and the search for them is fraught with the traps of infinite regress and contradiction.

Furthermore, the grand question of the 'meaning of life' itself carries structural ambiguity, making it extremely difficult to find a single universal answer.

By accepting the uncertainty of such 'reasons,' shifting the perspective from etiology to teleology as Adlerian psychology suggests, and steering from abstract speculation toward concrete 'practice' as Frankl preaches, it is thought that people may be able to become free from past or external justifications.

Have confidence without grounds, follow your own intuition and curiosity, and enjoy the contingency of things not going according to plan.

In this way, a way of life where you do not 'search' for reasons but 'create' them through the act of living itself, or a way of life that affirms simply living even without reasons, may become possible.

Might this attitude function as a compass for an age without a compass, for navigating a world filled with uncertainty?

Here, if we change our perspective, humans tend to seek reasons and meaning in all things and in their own lives, but philosophical inquiry rather opens up the possibility of a 'life without reasons'.

Many philosophers point out that the question 'What is the meaning of life?' itself is inappropriate in that it assumes ambiguity of the subject or a fixed meaning.

Kant, the father of modern philosophy, also concluded that humans cannot ultimately know the significance of their own existence, and a state of 'not finding the meaning of life' can be said to be a natural conclusion philosophically.

This recognition of the 'absence of meaning' can lead not only to a sense of emptiness but also to a turning point toward a new way of living.

Existentialist philosophy, particularly Sartre's idea that 'existence precedes essence,' posits that humans have no predetermined meaning or purpose, and are subjective beings who create meaning through their own choices and actions.

This perspective offers the freedom to be liberated from externally imposed 'reasons' and to give meaning to the world oneself.

As a place to explore and practice such a 'life without reasons,' 'philosophical dialogue' is gaining attention.

Philosophical dialogue does not seek a single correct answer, but emphasizes the process itself, where participants share questions and deepen their thinking.

Through dialogue with others, one becomes aware of their own assumptions and premises, and by becoming free from stereotypes, a flexible attitude of 'living with questions' without being bound by 'reasons' is fostered.

This process is not about passively accepting the nihilism that life has no meaning, but is also a path leading to 'optimistic nihilism,' where one affirms their own life precisely within that meaninglessness and lives each moment creatively.

Ultimately, a 'life without reasons' is a way of living that is liberated from purpose and rationality, valuing the sensations and experiences of the 'here and now' and the connections with others.

It can be said to be a creative endeavor that finds richness amidst uncertainty while carrying questions that have no answers.

6. The danger of asking for 'reasons': Why does philosophy not ask about the 'meaning of life'?

The question 'What is the meaning of life?', which is generally considered 'philosophical,' is often regarded as an inappropriate question in the field of professional philosophy.

The reason for this is that the question contains many non-obvious premises.

(1) Ambiguity of the subject

It is unclear whether the subject of 'meaning of life' is 'humanity,' an individual 'I,' or a specific group.

If the subject is 'humanity,' there is a danger of falling into speciesist thinking about why only humans have universal meaning; if the subject is 'I,' the basis for why one considers oneself to have special meaning among countless life forms is called into question.

At the moment of setting the subject, specific values and expectations have already entered.

(2) Premise of fixed meaning

This question assumes that there is an unchanging, consistent meaning or purpose over the long timeline of a life.

However, the meaning of life may change depending on the stage of life, and it may be something that is felt only at specific moments.

It has also been pointed out that the very act of seeking a grand meaning that runs through one's entire life may itself be a cause of suffering for people.

(3) The attitude of taking the existence of meaning for granted

In the first place, the premise of "Why is there meaning in living?" should itself be questioned.

From the perspective of the history of the universe and life, it might actually be unnatural to think that any special meaning is inherent in human or individual existence.

Psychiatrist Shion Kabasawa quotes the rakugo performer Danshi Tatekawa, who said, "Why do I live? Because I can't die," and states that humans are not born with meaning; rather, the reality of "being alive" comes first, and all meanings and reasons are added later.

From this perspective, it is natural—and philosophically correct—that one cannot find a meaning to life.

7. Starting from the absence of meaning: Existentialism and subjective creation

The realization that "the meaning of life does not exist a priori" can lead not to despair, but to the discovery of freedom.

Existentialism is the philosophy that demonstrated this shift.

(1) Sartre's shock: "Existence precedes essence"

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre argued that "existence precedes essence."

This is the idea that humans do not have a predetermined essence (meaning or purpose) from birth; they begin by "existing," and then create themselves through their own subsequent free choices and actions.

Philosopher and author Rei Nagai says that when she encountered Sartre's words in high school—"It is your job to give meaning to life, and value is nothing other than this meaning that you choose"—she was shocked, thinking, "I am allowed to give meaning to this world? Me?" and decided to pursue the path of philosophy.

This was an awakening to the fact that one becomes the creator of meaning, rather than seeking "correct answers" or "reasons" from the outside.

(2) Responsibility as subjectivity

This freedom simultaneously entails a heavy responsibility.

Since our choices shape our lives, we must accept the consequences.

However, this does not mean living according to an 'other-centered' axis, such as someone else's values or societal expectations, but rather living according to one's own 'subjective truth'.

Adlerian psychology also, from the standpoint of teleology, views humans as beings who can change themselves toward future goals rather than being bound by past causes, emphasizing this subjective aspect.

8. Philosophical dialogue as a space to explore 'life without reason'

A way of life that is free from 'reasons' and creates its own meaning is not something that can be completed through solitary contemplation alone.

Through dialogue with others, that exploration becomes richer. The practice for this is 'philosophical dialogue'.

(1) Deepening questions, not finding answers

Philosophical dialogue does not aim to reach specific conclusions or answers.

Participants freely discuss themes such as 'What is the meaning of life?', listen to each other's opinions, and layer questions upon one another.

What is important in this process is not to refute others' opinions, but to maintain an attitude of 'collaborative inquiry' where we think together.

Rei Nagai says that the philosophy she learned at university was not about knowledge or skills, but the very 'attitude' of engaging with others' questions and being able to say 'I don't know' together.

(2) Questioning premises and liberating thought

Through dialogue, participants are made aware of the premises and assumptions they held unconsciously (such as 'life must have meaning').

By encountering the diverse perspectives of others, one's own framework of thought is shaken, enabling more free-thinking ideas.

This serves as training to move away from an obsession with fixed 'reasons' and to view things from multiple angles.

(3) What can be seen from philosophical dialogue with middle and high school students

In a philosophical dialogue with middle and high school students on the theme of 'What is the meaning of life?', diverse points were developed, such as 'living for oneself vs. living for others,' 'whether one can be satisfied at the moment of death,' and 'goals versus the meaning of life'.

As the dialogue progressed, opinions that were initially contradictory, such as the idea that 'someone's existence can become someone else's meaning for living,' interacted and led to deeper insights.

This suggests that philosophical dialogue not only deepens individual introspection but also reveals the possibility of finding meaning within relationships with others.

9. How to live a 'life without reason': Beyond nihilism

Nihilism, the belief that life has no inherent meaning, is a challenge faced by many people living in modern society.

However, this does not necessarily lead to despair or lethargy.

(1) The shift to active nihilism

The philosopher Nietzsche distinguished between passive nihilism, which resigns itself to the idea that 'it's meaningless anyway,' and active nihilism, which asserts that 'because it is meaningless, one can create their own values and live this moment powerfully.'

This 'optimistic nihilism' is a philosophy that affirms living as one's own creator in a world where absolute values have been lost.

(2) The Eastern concepts of 'Emptiness' and 'Margin'

Eastern philosophy, particularly the Buddhist concept of 'Emptiness' (Sunyata), also provides a perspective that affirms a 'life without reason'.

This is the idea that all things lack a fixed essence and are like illusions that exist only within relationships.

Upon encountering this philosophy, Shinmei-P remarked that they 'stopped caring about a true self' and felt liberated from attachment to a fixed ego.

Similarly, not fearing 'blank' or 'margin' time and allowing for purposeless time can be a step toward becoming free from the modern 'purpose sickness' that demands reasons and efficiency.

(3) Practical tips for living

A 'life without reason' is not an abstract ideal, but something that appears in daily practice.

Focusing on the 'here and now':

Letting go of regrets about the past and anxieties about the future, and directing consciousness toward the present moment.

Trusting your senses:

Valuing your own senses and intuition, such as what you 'like' or what feels 'comfortable,' over logic and reasoning.

Perhaps there is no need for reasons for the things that are important to us.

Living with questions:

Viewing the act of living while holding onto questions, rather than rushing for answers, as a rich and creative endeavor.

Nurturing connections with others:

Finding richness in relationships with others, such as our existence becoming meaningful to someone else, or someone else's existence becoming meaningful to us.

Starting small:

Instead of searching for a grand purpose, moving life forward through small actions like 'I'll walk a little today.'

Meaning can be assigned to the world starting from the modest fragments of daily life.

10. Concrete methods for questioning the 'obvious' in philosophical dialogue

(1) How philosophical dialogue breaks down stereotypes

Philosophical dialogue serves as an effective means to break down stereotypes and gain new perspectives by providing a space where participants can freely share questions and think deeply.

The process has the following characteristics:

1. Re-questioning premises

In philosophical dialogue, participants re-question things they usually take for granted or assumptions they hold unconsciously.

This creates an opportunity to be freed from fixed thought patterns and biases.

Liberation from 'searching for the correct answer':

Philosophical dialogue emphasizes deepening questions rather than rushing to a specific conclusion.

This attitude has the effect of making thinking that is bound by existing frameworks more flexible.

Essence Intuition:

Through the process of gaining insight into the essence of things, one can go beyond superficial understanding and gain deep insights.

(2) Dialogue with diverse perspectives

Philosophical dialogue provides a space to broaden one's horizons through dialogue with people who have different values and opinions.

This makes it possible to break down stereotypes and explore new possibilities.

Acceptance of different opinions:

By listening to the opinions of others, you become aware of the biases and limitations of your own thinking.

Discovery of common understanding:

The process by which participants with different values find a common understanding through dialogue leads to the creation of new ideas that transcend stereotypes.

(3) An attitude of questioning the 'obvious'

Philosophical dialogue fosters an attitude of questioning what is considered 'common sense' or 'obvious'.

This attitude becomes the first step toward breaking down stereotypes.

Zero-based thinking:

By questioning common sense and rethinking from scratch, you cultivate the ability to create new methodologies and solutions.

Utilization of reverse thinking:

Techniques for gaining new perspectives by reversing existing ways of thinking are also utilized as part of philosophical dialogue.

4. Liberation from the framework of thinking

Philosophical dialogue provides a space where participants do not think alone, but listen to the opinions of others and expand the boundaries of their own perception.

This allows for liberation from stereotypes and biases, enabling more flexible thinking.

Removing bias:

Philosophical dialogue includes a process of noticing and overcoming unconscious biases, such as confirmation bias and groupthink bias.

Shifting perspectives:

By consciously changing frames, one can break through fixed patterns of thought and gain new perspectives.

5. Unleashing creativity

Philosophical dialogue functions not only as a way to break through stereotypes but also as a space to unleash creativity.

This allows participants to build new ideas and values.

Combining concepts:

The ability to connect seemingly unrelated concepts and create new value is enhanced.

Future-oriented:

It cultivates the power to deeply understand social changes and generate ideas that anticipate future needs.

6. Conclusion

Philosophical dialogue is an effective method for breaking through stereotypes and biases and drawing out new perspectives and creativity through the process of deepening questions.

By fostering dialogue with different opinions and an attitude of questioning what is taken for granted, participants can acquire flexible thinking and gain richer insights.

This process holds the potential to contribute not only to individual growth but also to the transformation of organizations and society.

(2) How philosophical dialogue liberates human thought

Philosophical dialogue plays an important role in liberating human thought by providing a space where participants share questions and freely deepen their thinking.

The process has the following characteristics:

1. Liberation from frameworks of thought

In philosophical dialogue, participants do not think alone; they listen to the opinions of others and can expand the boundaries of their own perceptions.

This makes it possible to be freed from stereotypes and biases, and to gain more flexible and multifaceted perspectives.

Removal of bias:

Through the facilitation of a philosopher, by posing questions from the 'contrapositive' position during the dialogue, one can remove the assumption that one's own thinking is correct and discover contradictions.

Expansion of perspective:

By listening to the opinions of others, the ability to perceive things from multiple angles is cultivated.

2. The freedom of not seeking a correct answer

In philosophical dialogue, there is no need to rush to a conclusion or a correct answer.

Through this liberation from 'searching for the right answer,' participants can let their thoughts wander freely and experience the deepening of their thinking.

Centering on the question:

Philosophical dialogue takes a 'question' as its starting point and places more importance on deepening the question than on producing an answer.

Liberation of purpose:

Unbound by purpose or efficiency, an attitude of 'it is okay not to know' and 'it is okay to change one's opinion' makes thinking flexible.

3. Insight into Essence

Philosophical dialogue is a space for exploring the essence of things, rather than their superficial aspects.

This allows participants to deepen their thinking and confront more fundamental questions.

Intuition of Essence:

Philosophical thinking aims to gain insight into the essence of things and encourages a process where participants think based on their own experiences and convictions.

Universal Questions:

Through questions that pursue essence, such as 'What is X?', participants can organize and deepen their own thinking.

4. Collaborative Thinking with Others

Philosophical dialogue is not just for individual introspection, but also a space to deepen thinking through dialogue with others.

This allows participants to share their thoughts with others and collectively gain new insights.

Acceptance of Diversity:

Thinking is stimulated when people from various backgrounds gather and face common issues while acknowledging each other's differences.

The Power of Dialogue:

Philosophical dialogue includes a process that not only diverges individual ideas but also eventually converges them and promotes consensus building.

5. Increasing Materials for Thought

Philosophical dialogue provides a space for participants to verbalize and recognize what they are 'vaguely thinking about'.

This increases the perspectives and materials for thought used to look at things, enabling deeper insights.

The Power of Verbalization:

Through dialogue, by putting your thoughts into words, your thinking becomes organized and clear.

Discovering new perspectives:

Through the opinions and concrete examples of others, you can gain new perspectives and ideas.

6. Summary

Philosophical dialogue frees us from the need to seek correct answers and provides a space for free thinking centered on questions.

Through collaborative dialogue with others, participants can broaden the framework of their own perceptions and approach the essence of things.

Since this process is thought to hold the potential to bring about change not only in individual thinking but also in organizations and society, we will adopt a Socratic dialogue format to explore through questions and responses whether it is possible for humans to "live without justifying everything."

In this dialogue, we will proceed with a discussion between a hypothetical questioner and an interlocutor, and as a conclusion, we will present the possibilities and concrete image of such a way of life.

Philosophical Dialogue: The Possibility of Living Without Justification

Questioner:
Interlocutor, first of all,
what do you think it means to "live without justification"?
For example, does it mean having no reasons or purposes for all actions and choices?

Interlocutor:
Hmm, I suppose so.
Living without justification probably means that when you act or make choices, you don't think deeply about
"why I am doing this"
or
"what this is for,"
but rather just live according to the flow or feelings of the moment.
For example, when you wake up in the morning and go for a walk,
instead of thinking
"for my health"
or
"to feel better,"
you just think "I want to walk, so I walk."

Questioner:
I see. In other words, you perceive
"justification"
as seeking a purpose or logical basis behind an action.
Then, if a human were to live without seeking reasons for every action, just saying
"I do it because I want to,"
what kind of life do you think that would be?
Would it be free, or would some problems arise?

Interlocutor:
It seems like it would be free, but problems would likely arise too.
In terms of freedom, for example, you might have less stress because you could act according to your impulses and intuition without being bound by rules or social expectations.
However, if you act without thinking about reasons, it might become difficult to live in relationships with others or in society.
For example, if you don't go to work and say,
"I'm not in the mood today, so I'll take the day off,"
your life might not be sustainable.

Questioner:
That's right.
Social responsibility and cooperation with others often require acting based on reasons or purposes.
On the other hand, the way of life you call
"following impulses and intuition"
might be close to, in philosophical terms, Nietzsche's
"will to power"
or the Taoist concept of
"wu wei" (effortless action).
The Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi preaches living in accordance with the flow of things, but I don't think he completely excludes reasons.
What do you think?
Do you think it is possible to completely exclude reasons?

Interlocutor:
I feel it's difficult to exclude them completely.
Don't humans, both consciously and unconsciously, have some kind of reason like
"this feels good for some reason"
before doing something?
For example,
"I'm eating because I'm hungry"—that in itself is a reason, right?
Moving completely without reason might be close to living only on animal instinct.
But since humans are thinking creatures, I feel like just instinct would be unsatisfying.

Questioner:
That's an interesting point.
"I'm eating because I'm hungry"
could indeed be called a reason.
Then, let's think about it this way.
There are conscious justifications (e.g., "I exercise for my health") and unconscious ones ("I'm eating because I'm hungry").
Can what you call
"living without justification"
be interpreted as excluding conscious justification?
Or do you want to exclude even instinctual reasons?

Interlocutor:
Hmm, it's closer to excluding conscious justification.
For example, instead of thinking every day,
"If I don't do this, such and such will happen in the future"
or
"I should do this because of society,"
I want to move more according to
"this very moment."
However, instinctual reasons, like
"I'm drinking water because I'm thirsty,"
cannot be excluded, right?
That's the basis for living.

Questioner:
That distinction is important.
Excluding conscious justification and living in the moment.
This might be close to the practices of Zen Buddhism or mindfulness.
In Zen, importance is placed on concentrating one's entire existence on
"this very moment"
and being freed from the reasons or purposes of the past or future.
For example, when making tea in the tea ceremony, one simply immerses oneself in the act itself.
But here, a new question arises.
If one lives by excluding conscious justification, do you think that is a happy way of life for a human?
Or is something missing?

Interlocutor:
Whether it leads to happiness might depend on the person.
Living in the moment probably makes the heart feel lighter, and it feels like being freed from worries and pressure.
However, if you do that all the time, you might not achieve long-term fulfillment, like chasing big goals or dreams.
Humans also find a sense of purpose in life by discovering meaning and goals, don't they?
If you completely eliminate reasons, a kind of emptiness like
[[phN_open]]
“just drifting”[[phN_close]] might emerge.

Questioner:
That point about
[[phN_open]]
“emptiness”
[[phN_close]]
is profound.
Existentialist philosophers, such as Sartre or Kierkegaard, thought that humans counter the anxiety of existence by creating meaning and purpose for themselves.
If you eliminate justification, that
[[phN_open]]
“meaning-making”
[[phN_close]]
disappears, so it is certainly possible that a sense of emptiness would arise.On the other hand, in Eastern philosophy, it is said that true freedom lies in the state of 'nothingness' that transcends reasons and purposes.There is a tension between these two, isn't there?How would you resolve this tension?Do you think it is possible to live a life that maintains fulfillment while reducing justification?

Interlocutor:
Hmm, I think finding a balance is important.
For example, living without thinking too deeply and going with the flow, but taking time to reflect on big goals or meanings occasionally.
It's not about completely eliminating reasons, but living in a way that isn't too bound by them.
For example, when I see people who create art or spend time in nature, and they feel joy in just 'doing' it without thinking much about reasons or purposes, I think that kind of life might be possible.

Questioner:
That idea of balance is attractive.
A way of life that is not bound by reasons, yet not completely purposeless.
For example, Heidegger's
[[phN_open]]
“care for existence”
[[phN_close]]
and Aristotle's
[[phN_open]]
“happiness (eudaimonia)”
[[phN_close]]
are theories that find purpose within the act itself.
The
[[phN_open]]
“people who create art”
[[phN_close]]
and [[phN_open]]“people who spend time in nature”[[phN_close]] you mentioned might be finding value in the act itself and not adding reasons after the fact.So, finally, please concretely describe the ideal form of [[phN_open]]“living without justifying”[[phN_close]] as you see it.What kind of life or actions would that be?

Interlocutor:
Ideally, it would be a life where I wake up and move according to the day's mood or intuition.
For example, if it's sunny, I might think,
[[phN_open]]
“I want to go to the sea,”
[[phN_close]]
and go to the sea to listen to the sound of the waves without any special reason.
Of course, there are jobs and obligations, but I would approach them not with
[[phN_open]]
“I have to do this,”
[[phN_close]]
but with
[[phN_open]]
“I enjoy doing this.”
[[phN_close]] In relationships, too, if I think, [[phN_open]]“I want to see this person,”[[phN_close]] I go to see them.I would have loose plans and goals, but I wouldn't be bound by them, focusing instead on savoring the moment.Something like that.

Conclusion:
A way of life without justification. Through this dialogue, we were able to organize that
[[phN_open]]
“living without justifying”
[[phN_close]]
refers to a way of life that follows moments and intuition without being bound by conscious purposes or logical grounds.However, completely eliminating reasons is difficult due to human instincts and the constraints of social life.As an ideal way of life, the following forms can be considered.

Immersion in the moment:
Like Zen or mindfulness, focus on the
[[phN_open]]
“here and now,”
[[phN_close]] and be freed from reasons of the past or future.For example, finding joy in the act itself, such as walking, eating, or creating art.

Maintaining loose purposes:
Do not completely eliminate big goals or meanings, but live flexibly without being bound by them.
For example, having light guidelines such as
[[phN_open]]
“I want to be healthy”
[[phN_close]] or [[phN_open]]“I want to spend time with loved ones.”[[phN_close]]

Respecting intuition and instinct:
Do not ask
[[phN_open]]
“why”
[[phN_close]]
too much about the motives for actions, and accept them as
[[phN_open]]“I do it because I want to.”[[phN_close]] For example, going on a trip without a reason or immersing oneself in a hobby.

Harmony with society:
Maintain social responsibilities and relationships with others while minimizing justification.
For example, viewing work not as an
[[phN_open]]
“obligation”
[[phN_close]]
but as a [[phN_open]]“creative expression.”[[phN_close]]

This way of life aims for a balance that reduces stress and pressure from excessive justification while maintaining meaning and fulfillment.

Philosophically, it is close to the Taoist concept of

[[phN_open]]“Wu Wei (non-action/naturalness)”[[phN_close]]

and Nietzsche's

[[phN_open]]“affirmation of life,”[[phN_close]]

and in modern terms, it leads to the practice of mindfulness and minimalism.

Ultimately,

[[phN_open]]“living without justifying”[[phN_close]]

could be said to be not about completely eliminating reasons, but about cultivating a free state of mind that is not dominated by reasons.

▶Reference Article: [Philosophy in the Palm of Your Hand] Episode 2: What is Philosophical Dialogue? What we fail to do in everyday communication

▶Reference Book: "Philosophy Dialogues: Plato, Husserl, and the Method of Creating Common Understanding" (Chikuma Sensho) by Ken Nishi

"Introduction to Philosophical Thinking" (Chikuma Primer Shinsho) by Ittoku Tomano

"Starting Philosophical Dialogue from Zero" (Philosophy Practice Handbook) edited by Tetsuya Kono, editorial cooperation by Chiaki Tokui / Rei Nagai