Open philosophical discussion (read OP)

Craig; I am sick of your logic. Stop being stupid and accept reality as it is.

Drew; But reality is ignorance. There are no facts, only interpretations. The further out you go, the more the universe has to change itself to escape our understanding of it.

Craig; What utter semantics. You sound dorky. What are you even saying? Nevermind, you're just an idiot.

Drew; what i'm basically saying is this. We do not understand reality, but this is only because reality is not something which is necessary to understand. Since we can never know everything, what use is it to try and get to the bottom of reality. You will never find the truth, because truth was never meant to be understood. It is an act, a commitment, not a concept which is coherent or which can be made coherent.

Craig; but coherence is the basis for intelligibility. We need to be intelligent in our observations about reality.

Drew; I understand. Yes, intelligibility is necessary for even the most rudimentary forms of observation and perception. However, this does not mean that we can assimilate the nature of reality to those basic perceptions. Remember, just because you can describe something doesn't mean you understand it, and reality is certainly not something which we can understand or need to understand.

Craig; what a bunch of nonsense! Of course we cannot fully comprehend reality as it is, but our descriptions and theories about it are, in fact, very insightful. Metaphysics is extremely useful in helping us see reality in a perfectly coherent and intelligible manner. What you practice is a form of blind meditation, of mere contemplation. However, knowing how a car engine works is very important if you ever find yourself stranded on no gas. You need petroleum. You need to understand its mechanics. In the same way we need to find a way to fix philosophy as it stands, less our society be run by ignorants. 

 Drew; Of course we need to refine philosophy in its current state, but this doesn't mean that we should subject metaphysics to language. That simply creates the same problems you just described. We can always revise our metaphysical axioms, but ontology is not something we need to study. Epistemology is more important, otherwise you end up with people who stand firmly on false premises such that their conclusions are always irrational and illogical. Rather than accepting anything as true without a firm epistemic foundation, we should instead be doubtful. Doubt is better than dogmatism. If doubt leads to ignorance then so be it. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Craig; I do not agree. Ignorance is ignorance, plain and simple. What you're espousing is nothing more than a reflection of that ignorance. The truth is always most important. If I found a large chunk of gold lying on the floor, I'd pick it up rather than leave it. In other words, I wouldn't doubt that it was real gold. Even if it turned out not to be real gold, there's nothing to lose in finding out. 

Drew; Yes, there is. When you think you have the answer and then realize that you were merely deluding yourself, it does hurt. Also, you have given a somewhat extreme example. You say you are in pursuit of truth, so why do you strawman my position?