>>17930899
It’s all about aesthetic preference. Some people just want a final answer. No more thinking required. That is why they love brute facts, prime movers, or just saying *deal with it*. The hate for infinite regress comes from the same place. The psychological need for closure.
In logic, there is the Münchhausen trilemma (known also as Agrippa's): any explanation eventually leads to one of three *bad* options
> Infinite regress (no real answer just endless *why?*)
> Brute fact (*just because* no deeper reason)
> Circular logic (it is true because it caused itself to be true)
Pick your poison. Each camp acts like their choice is obviously better, but really, it is all arbitrary. Brute fact fans shrug and say *that is just how it is*, circular logic folks hide behind *foundational coherence*, and infinite regress enjoyers either embrace the chaos or get called out for explaining nothing.
Everyone knows the trilemma is unavoidable and unsolvable, but no one wants to admit their pseudo-answer is just a fancy way of saying *I like this one better*. So instead, we get endless debates where people dress up their preference in big words, pretending it is deeper than it is.
This whole mess disappears once you realize it isn't about logic but about psychology.
