Purpose and Philosophy

One of the first questions a person needs to ask when addressing or confronting philosophy, is what are they involved with. The question of “the philosophical”, for a term, is actually secondary. Because the first question Hass to be is “why am I doing this?” What am I doing when I am viewing or otherwise being involved with philosophy. What am I trying to do?

Without even getting into the philosophical area of ethics, I would say that most philosophers are trying to make a living. Or at least they’re trying to make a name for themselves intentionally. But the reason why I bring up ethics is because most philosophers that are getting paid to do philosophy or trying to get paid to do philosophy are actually trying to come up with some sort of ethical solution for the problem in front of them. Ethics here is consistent with Reduction to unity, e.g. the universal. It is a social endeavor, for contributing to society. 

Yet, This is the issue that Kierkegaard addresses throughout his works. It may not seem apparent, because most people, I’d say, think Kierkegaard is some sort of spiritual or Christian philosopher; I’d say though, that is really because people are not understanding the basic philosophical issues that he is addressing. They are simply looking at words, and he uses the word “Christian” a lot and as part of his philosophy, and then really stop thinking right at that point. I would even go so far as to say that most people who read Kierkegaard are always already reading him through an ethical lens of trying to reconcile what is philosophically contradicting Intellectual elements; what is ethical is that somehow as a philosopher I need to connect those two ethical components into something “real”, some thing that makes sense so far as I am involved with humanity and must somehow deal with the world and humanity in a way that supports being human. Which is to say, staying alive, being happy, getting along with others, having a sustainable place to live, things like that.

A philosophy which does not attempt to ethically reconcile the two discrepant intellectual presentations, is on one hand, viewed as “unethical”, which is to say, the person actually is involved in something that is immoral or contrary or against human life, or on the other hand, it is viewed as nonsense. A “not- ethical” philosophy, for a term, is “not reductive to unity” or plural.

The former instance we will put off as a natural ethical instance, for example, racist philosophies or genocidal philosophies I’m not sure we really need to discuss right here.

The latter instance is what , I will call of my “3 philosophers” that I mentioned in a previous post and I mention everywhere, Address in their various ways.

But I would also bring in Jean-François Lyotard and what he coins as “the postmodern condition”. This philosopher I think address is the issue of ethical consistency in a kind of indirect manner. I will just bring up two of his writings. Namely “the postmodern condition”, and “the differend”.

The main issue that he brings up in the second book is located in the question of justice. He asks, How does a person get justice for a case that the court cannot understand?

He then goes on to talk about how the court will automatically think that it understands The case that is being presented. It will then dispense compensation, but because the court is not understanding the claim, the compensation will always be lacking and justice will not in truth be served.

This is the issue of a philosophy which is “not” ethical. Philosophy which looks at two presenting aspects and notices them and the repercussions of them, but does not attempt to mend the discrepancy ethically, it does not attempt to reconcile the contradiction of the two intellectual aspects. I have used Aristotle’s idea of causal form to indicate this kind of “not ethical” philosophy. Consistent with the form of things, I talk about a “object oriented” philosophy. And the concern of my works is one’s orientation upon objects.

 The issue I also associate with the loose distinctions that really are all to my sight stemming from the same kind of ethical proposal, that is, the modern philosophical issue witch permeates all corners of intellectualism called phenomenalism, or phenomenology.  

The persistence and basically insistence that every philosophical proposal must be addressing the ethical human being as an existing subject, can be likened to “the court” of Lyotard’s postmodern condition. His point is not that every human being comes across this situation of not being understood. He is not as much making an existential point about the general human condition as he is making a philosophical point for us here between an attempt to talk about causal form in a philosophical environment where everything is assumed and must be reduced to phenomenological subjectivity. The reason why “difference” it’s pronounced in postmodernism, is because “metaphysics”, the “after the physics” has already been subsumed in the modern phenomenological religion. So certain authors felt that they have to talk about what comes after the modern religion, what comes after the “metaphysics” of modernity. His “incredulity towards metanarratives” is really the expression that one has difficulty believing that metaphysics would even have a place in knowledge. Less that we just get to doubt any assertion of authority, and more that it is just difficult to believe that people are so obstinate. The fact that people might read his peace and then believe that they have some sort of choice, and ability to question authority, to question all metanarratives, is described in his essayIn his essay “the postmodern condition” where he gives a reason for this obstinacy: technology. Is the modern example , or fulcrum upon which people diverge from what is true of the situation. 

The issue that Lyorard brings up, then, is how are we to get justice for what is actually true of the situation, when all the evidence we bring to the court is misunderstood, even as the court thinks it’s understanding every thing that is being brought to evidence. And that’s what is happening, what is actually happening, is the restitution that is being paid for the claim is not matching the crime.

When our most recent authors start to talk about “the event” they are talking about “this crime” of injustice in philosophy. And they are speaking about it in such a way that includes All of reality, Albeit,  not ethically; Becuase the universe itself is not an ethical place, we have to figure out how to speak of what is actually occurring instead of what we subjectively intend. So in order for a couple of those authors at least to be able to speak from a position that is not ethical and yet still address it, in reality, they that resort to what is political. Because politics does not have anything to do with ethics. Politics have to do with power. And power, the discourse of power, has nothing to do with reconciling ethics. The reconciliation of ethics have to do with the court for phenomenological subjectivity. 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s