/lit/ - Literature

>>11708327
The "justification for justification" is the SINGLE greatest concrete problem facing the philosophically minded today. It is of course biological, and paradoxically conducive to social progress. I've thought about it a lot and have only reached an absurd conclusion - that there is, for every question, a "productive limit" to self-justification, which is to say, a unique stopping point for every inquiry, past which the question either dissolves entirely or branches aimlessly.
I conclude that it is the nature of our questions, linguistically, that entrap us so. Wittgenstein speaks on this, and in him I found some solidarity.
The problem with justification and its limits are so pressing because to the "wise", they are immediately practical. We can live on "instinct" (quotes because this word tends to be used reductively when it shouldn't be), but then, what of morals? And so, quite elegantly, we return to the core: does it matter how we live and why?
Here's a comforting, if mystifying thought. Nature, on conceiving life, "decided," as we observe it, that we should reproduce. Why do you think nature "chose" this? Is that same Nature which hard rationalists defer to so readily, just as arbitrary as we are in its apparent "wants"?

My Ego is dead, lit. Everything is relative, there is no imperative to be anything, other than for the Ego's sake. Art is hollow, a reflection of mankind in a shallow pond. Even philosophy fails, since there is no reason to simply accrue truth - hoarding, and then honing knowledge and understanding can only enhance reality so much, without the Ego.
Any books, or insight to prove me wrong? I've looked to metaphysics and Kierkegaard's Leap of Faith, but other than this, is there any salvation? Am I missing part of the point of philosophy; is truth a higher calling?