I’ve just finished ‘The Story of Philosophy’ by Bryan Magee, which is a very good, short and picturesque book about philosophy from the ancient greeks to about 20years ago. Great it is in the sense that it brings you such a long way, and then disappointing because you miss the most exciting period, a period that is still being written.

It misses for example, the more scientific philosophies of Penrose, Hawking and Hofstadter or the more historical accounts by Niall Ferguson, or the Psychedelic accounts of Huxely, McKenna and Sheldrake.

It also only glazes over Eastern philosophy, which is less analytic in character and based more on personal experience that cannot really be transmitted in any form of communication.

In short I think this has been a type of constriction on philosophy from the very beginning. No matter how many authors I read, I seem to find that they miss something very large in their personal accounts. They start at places of enquiry that are almost fixed. There is a tradition where a philosopher tries to take of from where one of his hero’s left off, or at the other extreme to find the initial fault in assumption and to take logical conclusions hence forth. I guess the basic Err, is that by constricting themselves to logical argument, the authors are forced by the very nature of their thought to follow each other in linear step. One argument must follow another.

It always has the same effect on me. It is as if they come forth like the white knight full of promise and when they actually present themselves, there is followed by momentary excitement, a massive disappointment. It is in a sense that we are drawn back to life, to our everyday existence and that the conclusions of the philosophy haven’t changed anything.

What I want to do is to create a philosophy that doesn’t have such constraints. A nonlinear philosophy, where arguments do not necessarily follow one another, where the thought process needn’t be so constricted but at the same time is quite intelligible. This seems to be a paradox. It I think stems from the fact that the world follows a computational model, algorithmic, sequencial and procedural. Analytical thought is nothing but this at higher orders. Where the objects of analysis are multidimensional, ultra-complex and infinitely subjective. This is why we can philosophize, this is what Wittegenstein, was on about. The language barrier, ‘of what cannot be said, say nothing’ and what phenomenology tried to avoid by claiming that existence is in essence our experience of it, our interaction with it. In other words, we create our reality.

Anyway, I am getting ahead of my self and must finish here, in being and nothingness. Infinite loop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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