Monopolistic Reflections on Thought
Today philosophy is destroyed. It is not that in the universities there are no philosophers (but only those called so), but philosophy is destroyed. Philosophic sense is not something like a reflection in a window that can be blocked by a hand. Instead, the fact of the destruction of philosophy in the end of metaphysics is something which logically, i.e., through reasoned grounds or by the principle of identity, can not be said. Yet this loss is, indeed, somehow sought as a fact. It can not be demonstrated out of the phenomena. A reason for it in the chain of causes is not waiting to be found. It belongs to the knowledge or thinking which now lights the earth. Because the world essence is felt to move, as it were, here and now, we seem to have some warrant for searching for it. But there would be no direction for the search to move in. When it is sought, the first thing that we ineptly reach towards is a psychology of former beings. As though the same beings could be set up, to look at, for us here, as a kingdom within a kingdom. It is my conviction that this is not a problem of representation, of something which could be more or less accurate, and could be improved upon by degrees, but at the same time, thought into the past, into these matters, gives such impressions almost a soupçon of truth. What is necessary is the refusal of the logical overlay, which makes all attempts appear as matters of representation. Thus, from the millennial or thousands of years old history of thought, something wants to stir from sleep.
On Why the Normative Sense of the Destruction of Metaphysics is not Adequate
The loss of the belief in the eternality of principles in the face of the turn towards change in circumstance, arbitrariness, and expedience is empirically obvious. Technocratic jurists reject the common law tradition as the usurpation of the political by the judges. The field of political philosophy is removed for that of a political science which focuses on the transfigurations of society. Every project calling itself political philosophy is a caricature which must justify its existence in a reactionary or fundamentalist awareness of its own defects. The theory of evolution pushes reflection on the world essence into confusion.
The denial of direct and literal creation leads to the belief in a world essence that is to be found through knowledge. The neutral god, or “natural world”, presents itself as waiting for human beings to complete the transformation of all the neutral things into the utopia. The sciences, if they did not suppose knowledge were of use, would not seek it. The problem of god is only concealed by this religion of knowledge. Even if the knowledge were zealously sought ‘for its own sake’ this would show the sense of a god that had its meaning and therefore its purpose, in this.
Because the earth can never be maintained over and against the world, but the distinction is always only a kind of nonce clarifying principle, the thought of all gods, whether the neutral-towards earthly salvation and the imminent utopia, or any other, remain jailed with the logical tableau. The logical tableau is the way of covering, such that whoever would destroy the god can not truly destroy it. For instance in the name of maximum freedom, or scientific objectivity, i.e., as if no project followed on the logical annunciation which brings the things into logistical perch amidst life.
The doctrine that denied truth would have been naive if it had truly denied truth. The meaning, and therefore the purpose of life can not be outlawed. Therefore Nietzsche speaks of the little bit of “knowing” that, roughly, continues to be a knowing, always in some other perspective. This is almost like a definition of an entity, similar to that of Kant’s rational beings, or Heidegger’s Dasein. Because Nietzsche is supposed to be “dancing” one is always ready to abscond with the principle, I mean with the law that makes clear what his philosophy says, and to throw up a phosphorescent scarab, that flies beautifully, its back lined with purplish red over gold and green, until we no longer ask, who is this Nietzsche. Thus the rubric itself absconds into the monstrous gulf of mud. Whereas with Heidegger, something more like the reverse is the case. The Rubric Heidegger tries to make language stand there, to hold fast, in such a way as to speak without being logical. But yet to be utterly reliable and to say what it says. He does this through trying to teach a way of thinking, that would think underneath the language, and not over it in the manner of validity and formal logic. The so-called ‘target phenomena’ itself is closer to what thinks that than is the logic or logos.
Plato already understood that words don’t always speak in the same way. Since that is the raison d'etre of the dialog over and against the dark words, speech or treatise, or any monopolistic form of modern essay. The apostrophe of Dostoevsky and Derrida might question the ground of the essay, in the way it stands over and against the polyphonousness of the work that speaks differently to different interlocutors and therefore to different readers, yet, it does not leave the principle of logos even when it attacks it with the most polemical probity.
What is Being Destroyed?
If destruction meant wrecking and building it would be a technique suitable to design and the arts and perhaps to literary work. If destruction speaks to the earth and the world, it can not be said. But by saying that it can’t be said we can’t thereby sink into arbitrariness. It is then necessary to point to the work of thinking by which one can stop thinking of doing and thinking, in the sense of action and learning, but can see knowing as the lighting of the earth. Harriet Tubman says, I would have freed more slaves had “they known that they were slaves”. This can never be taken to mean, if only they were not so ill-informed, their actions should have been of a wholly different character. In the way the earth swallows up what it knows through the world, in the way copses and lakes stand under the sky and the wind, everything is thought logically in the divisions of discerning knowing. If we look at some of those who did not know that they were not philosophers, for instance those so-called philosophers of our own time, we notice that it is not as though this not knowing were something.
It is quite possible that nothing is aimed at by this post, since the Utopia aimed at by the modern sciences, the exclusive right to sell the human life, may be tangibly reachable. The current reflection would still be thinking even in the Utopia (provided it was not made illegal and thereby removed as a disease), about the knowing in the sense that it can’t say through the logos.