"Philosophy starts when something is out of joint: that is, when things don’t fit together, when something is missing, and so on."
I've had this feeling for a few days, that something is wrong, but nothing seems wrong. My studies are going well, my writing is smooth, and my usual habits are under control. But I still can't shake this feeling that something is wrong. Something I cannot define or understand, but I am aware of its existence. Although I can't explain it myself, this opening piece describes this feeling beautifully.
Such a nice piece! So excited to see the flow of thoughts (and also feelings inside) and beautiful narrative and it captures most of my impression of philosophy (of what it is or what it should be)! For too much time, academic people are attentive to the ‘Sophia’ aspect of philosophy and compares it to science in discovering the nature of the world, but they just ignore the ‘love’ part, the essential ‘gesturing towards’ the truth it aims at, the daring courage to be confused or puzzled again and again, in discovering the unevenness of what appears to be the natural. As you so nicely said, this requires some precondition: the urge or the ‘ability’ (if put it in a more active way) to philosophize is not a natural trait people are born with. It is like love---suddenly, mysteriously, you are captured by the beauty of her/him (you may also fake it by persuading yourself saying ‘I love him/her’ time and time again until you make it, but it is not real love as we know). You ‘fall in’ love, as you fall for philosophy. I have two questions: 1. Love can’t be taught, but can’t philosophy be taught? I am not saying that the discipline and the courses offered at universities are evidence for saying philosophy can really be taught---but isn’t the motivation or urge for truth same for every real subject: Natural science, other humanities department? Shall we say these subjects can’t be taught either? The motivation is hard to instill in a person, but generally speaking, I think it is still can be cultivated in education: moral education, your encountering with Wittgenstein or Aristotle. You may say this is the ‘transformative experience’, not education proper. But then what is education, if not as the occasioning of transforming an ignorant child into a automatic person? 2. I really agree with the idea that philosophy starts from confusion, not on the level of theory, but on another more primitive level: what makes us confused always takes us a long time to explicitly formulate it in a formal sentence. But shall we say it is ‘feeling’? Since it still lies in the purview of the conceptual, I think maybe we can give it another name-but maybe we don’t for the word of feeling is so pertinent. Finally, dare I say, philosophy, extending your point on love-philosophy, philosophy would be the burden, the plight of the person who philosophize, but also her opportunity of being divine----just by contemplating human, not God’s, life.
Anna – thank you for your thoughts. The experience of love is synonymous to actions that demonstrate a commitment to another. This relates to how important love is to philosophy which requires action and commitment. This resonates with me, “We fall into philosophy when some impetus pushes us to confront the gaps and nonsense in our world, and to philosophize—as to love—is to continue falling, willingly”. My story begins in wonder about existence. This transformed into a love of psychology which later revealed philosophy as the true center of my experience. To your posting, my gap was shown in that intuition and religion collided revealing the nonsense of a self-created-god with a nefarious purpose than a loving connection between people. I would like to add to your post the action of love in philosophy is related to the depth of thought in questioning life, world, self, etc… I recall once asking: is this as good as it gets? This was a transformative moment in that it was a call for action. Transformation is movement that occurs in moments. The right questions call upon philosophy to bring clarity in the chaos of life. It is not that we bend life to our experience but rather the other way around – the clarity is transformative in how to live in the chaos. Again, thank you for your thoughts, especially your commentary Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and notes on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
"Philosophy is really homesickness—the desire to be everywhere at home" - Novalis. Maybe the urge to philosophy is the urge to return home, which in the modern world is where the heart lies.
"Philosophy starts when something is out of joint: that is, when things don’t fit together, when something is missing, and so on."
I've had this feeling for a few days, that something is wrong, but nothing seems wrong. My studies are going well, my writing is smooth, and my usual habits are under control. But I still can't shake this feeling that something is wrong. Something I cannot define or understand, but I am aware of its existence. Although I can't explain it myself, this opening piece describes this feeling beautifully.
Such a nice piece! So excited to see the flow of thoughts (and also feelings inside) and beautiful narrative and it captures most of my impression of philosophy (of what it is or what it should be)! For too much time, academic people are attentive to the ‘Sophia’ aspect of philosophy and compares it to science in discovering the nature of the world, but they just ignore the ‘love’ part, the essential ‘gesturing towards’ the truth it aims at, the daring courage to be confused or puzzled again and again, in discovering the unevenness of what appears to be the natural. As you so nicely said, this requires some precondition: the urge or the ‘ability’ (if put it in a more active way) to philosophize is not a natural trait people are born with. It is like love---suddenly, mysteriously, you are captured by the beauty of her/him (you may also fake it by persuading yourself saying ‘I love him/her’ time and time again until you make it, but it is not real love as we know). You ‘fall in’ love, as you fall for philosophy. I have two questions: 1. Love can’t be taught, but can’t philosophy be taught? I am not saying that the discipline and the courses offered at universities are evidence for saying philosophy can really be taught---but isn’t the motivation or urge for truth same for every real subject: Natural science, other humanities department? Shall we say these subjects can’t be taught either? The motivation is hard to instill in a person, but generally speaking, I think it is still can be cultivated in education: moral education, your encountering with Wittgenstein or Aristotle. You may say this is the ‘transformative experience’, not education proper. But then what is education, if not as the occasioning of transforming an ignorant child into a automatic person? 2. I really agree with the idea that philosophy starts from confusion, not on the level of theory, but on another more primitive level: what makes us confused always takes us a long time to explicitly formulate it in a formal sentence. But shall we say it is ‘feeling’? Since it still lies in the purview of the conceptual, I think maybe we can give it another name-but maybe we don’t for the word of feeling is so pertinent. Finally, dare I say, philosophy, extending your point on love-philosophy, philosophy would be the burden, the plight of the person who philosophize, but also her opportunity of being divine----just by contemplating human, not God’s, life.
Anna – thank you for your thoughts. The experience of love is synonymous to actions that demonstrate a commitment to another. This relates to how important love is to philosophy which requires action and commitment. This resonates with me, “We fall into philosophy when some impetus pushes us to confront the gaps and nonsense in our world, and to philosophize—as to love—is to continue falling, willingly”. My story begins in wonder about existence. This transformed into a love of psychology which later revealed philosophy as the true center of my experience. To your posting, my gap was shown in that intuition and religion collided revealing the nonsense of a self-created-god with a nefarious purpose than a loving connection between people. I would like to add to your post the action of love in philosophy is related to the depth of thought in questioning life, world, self, etc… I recall once asking: is this as good as it gets? This was a transformative moment in that it was a call for action. Transformation is movement that occurs in moments. The right questions call upon philosophy to bring clarity in the chaos of life. It is not that we bend life to our experience but rather the other way around – the clarity is transformative in how to live in the chaos. Again, thank you for your thoughts, especially your commentary Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and notes on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
"Philosophy is really homesickness—the desire to be everywhere at home" - Novalis. Maybe the urge to philosophy is the urge to return home, which in the modern world is where the heart lies.