Está en la página 1de 4

Maxs philosophical quips

The materialist minded philosopher has capitulated to the wilful children of Father Philo and mother Sophia-as in the children of Science and Technology-to become the servant/facilitators, taking comfort in assuming the role of technicians of language and the managers of the cannon of excepted empirical bounded conceptual systems. In fact it has hardened in to an indulged child who continually is heard proclaiming the end of philosophy and the end of metaphysic while at the same time dogmatically championing the metaphysic of the senses as the only valid confirmation of objective sense based reality. The existentialist/humanistic philosopher priest directly reading from the scripture of massive facticity, of the given, of the reached joy of freedom. These philosophers are found spraying everyone in earshot with reams of garbled-in clique- termology, positions and representations consisting of endless self-referential language. They mistake cultural motifs as meta-narratives, fooling people regarding the approximation and preconisation of the signified and the signifier- as in the view of the ever postponed real. Resultantly they have no choice but to take flight-and safety- in to the denigrated space / spectre of art and film- our schizoid mirror which confirms any lie we need at the present time. R Thurman A philosopher practices a focused reflection and an intense examination of her ethical behaviour and its results in political commitment -otherwise if not she in merely a theoretician or worse, an academic; social justice is love in action and a link between ethics and wisdom as found in wisdom as praxis. Therefore my philosophical koans are Values in aid of philosophical dialogue; 1. Courage 2. Decency 3. Integrity 4. Humility [always realising that one is never right at a fundamental level unless one is a fundamentalist] 5. Commitment to a joint endeavour Six questions in search of answer 1. What is wisdom? 2. How do we recognise wisdom 3. Why should we love wisdom? 4. How do I transcend fear? 5. How do I live after coming to realise freedom? 6. How do I do a true act? Short caveats, questions and premises; My philosophical approach is a struggle against immorality and cleverness with deconstructive consequentialism and disorientation.
1

Three questions [all propositionally, linguistically and analytically similar] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Whats the time? Does the number 42 bus go to Sunderland? Do you love me? Did she die in vain? Did I choose the right husband? Is there a god? [Asked by Richard Dawkins] Is there a god? [Ask by a Dostoevsky before the firing squad] Is there a god? [Ask by Richard Dawkins before the firing squad]

If philosophy in merely an exercise in analytical definition; best-case scenario thoughts experiments designed to sharpen ethical definition. Worst-case scenario the unleashing of reams of term-ology used by the posturing insecure to silence the gullible in the face of their own befuddlement. When we talk about philosophy our talk consists of primary language as in the words used and secondary language such as symbols, ordinations of casual relations, motifs, historical myths. I argue that secondary, the language of the below and the in-between is the real engine of meaning making. Secondary language in-bodies our words thoughts with an emotional feeling tone that we may wrongly perceive as wisdom. We may further mistake the resulting feeling tone our self-apparent wisdom- as a legitimisation of our primary premises. In turn adding legitimacy to the philosophical representations used.

Dialectic competing ideology Dialogical morphing ontogenesis- no centre. When using logic as justification we must be at our most truthful. When using logic to deconstruct the theories/propositions of others we must be saints. The Truth as an event in/of dialogue is at best a poetical approximation and, at worst, an agreed recognition. Between the Event of perception and the Forms of articulation there is a vast and dangerous gulf. What is a worthy proposition? Chose between these words: truth/worthy/useful/approximation/ commitment. Deconstruction towards what end? Towards the separation of perception from confusion of conception. Wisdom is not containable in a proposition.
2

How is wisdom recognised? My sense of being a philosopher is to remove fictions and live unarmed against death and life The terrain of our private justified kingdom [constructivist approaches] could include political ideologies-both left and right- or as specific as a personal relating style. Both are defined not by the boarder that they construct to keep in, but by the boarder their construct to keep out, to repel. Intellectual reification Vs mytho-poetical imaginal So I am left thinking it does not really matter what philosophy in saying, rather wisdom is in asking what I must ask of philosophy. Do I want to define /construct / constrict or do I want to OPEN MY EYES TO THE TO THE HEART OF THE WORLD. I suggest that philosophy bespoken as an attempt towards an agora, a space were differing narratives are allowed to enter and take the shape most needed for the present times. A systematic body of philosophy [platonic truths] are stretched and, ultimately, dishonest; unless qualified to the point where is becomes archaeologist Whenever one commits to an ontology, thereafter, any proceeding statement/ utterance is/has, and results, in a value restriction to, and within, their ontology. Better a commitment to ontogenesis and the dialogical: Where do we situate our a priori approach; self, ontology, language, the mythic, the absolute, the relative, the in-between in our a priori/coming to understanding? Most of the philosophers that I have read do not inspire me, they have seemed cleaver CHILDREN. I prefer the saints [from all traditions], mad people and honest criminals; linked to political philosophy.

Do we situate the philosophical dialogue approaches to epistemology in the constructive tradition or in the deconstructive, what of the edification of present contingencies, or do we use philosophy as an art of liberation? Do we need to undertake the construction of a fluid [aware of its contingent value] meta-narrative womb that serves the purpose of gemmating new philosophical approaches / hybrids? Philosophy only takes place within cultural concepts referred to as minds or the I (language / reference) unless one believes in a Platonic philosophical archetype; as in the mind! - An outrageous philosophical fumble!

Human rights: The future is made of the same stuff as the present. One cannot imagine St Francis of Assisi talking about rights: Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed that feels what is happening. Unless one places oneself at the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand. Simone Weil Preformative philosophy is mystical in-actment

[Political] philosophy? The State is the god of the liars, the wretched and, servile cowards; but we all like cake! Is it fair to claim that to remove philosophy from its fundamental political purpose - political as in the POWER to define and claim representation - is akin to telling a passenger on an flying aeroplane that she is free to leave the aeroplane anytime she wants. How do we legitimise our claim to representational authority, as in respectable working philosophical premises? How do we define and limit ideas of human agency?

Are there limits to human agency; if there is, how we would know. If there are no limits to human agency, then how would we know this too? Would we recognise that we had just banged our head against a transcendental epistemology [and perceptual] boundary?

También podría gustarte