Big Questions often resolve themselves into two camps, such as between rationalism and empiricism. This happens when some sticking point is reached that cannot be resolved.
Why is it so common for the emergence of two camps to occur, rather than three or more? I have some explanations.
- I, or my education, have filtered out cases which are not dualistic and the assumption is wrong
- Ockham's razor calls for a minimum of competing explanations, and any more is due to an imprecise definition of the problem, i.e. there is more than one "sticking point" at play when a multitude of explanations are offered and one "sticking point" should be accorded only two alternative explanations
- This is a cultural inheritance of western thought