Dialectic of Philosophy, part 1

In having a few minutes to Roll my last post on Benjamin and Hegel around.

I am always attempting to reformulate the structure of the terms by which I present my ideas. It is a philosophical maxim that there’s only one idea (how could we even talk about any ideas if there was not something of substance to talk about?), there are things in themselves, and we talk about them in a multitude of ways. And so the attempt to try and communicate this condition of things is often misunderstood or misinterpreted. It is possible that this ontological foundation of misinterpretation and misunderstanding is indeed the modern subject.

In this case, of rolling over Benjamin, I was come upon by a way to perhaps again structure the idea of things. 

Often I find that an author really says what they are going to elaborate upon within the first paragraph or two or maybe page or two of their essay. That often once reading the first couple pages it’s not really difficult to then know what they have said in so many ways throughout the rest of the essay.

And what I mean by this form is the impetus of this post. I’m just starting out now but just getting going I’m noticing that I might have to bust this up until three or four parts.

The analogy of walking into a hospital.

What I call “orientation” can be likened to ways of viewing. These ways of viewing thus concern thinking, rather than being an example of thinking.

The analogy is like that of walking into a hospital wing, or observing a nurse, say walking into a hospital wing.

What I call “conventional philosophy” understands all things, events, things, observances, nurses, beds, patients, activities, etc… as occurring within a one unit, within the one hospital wing. conventional philosophy sees all occurrences, all events it’s taking place within the one wing of the hospital, and thus, like a prescribing doctor for that wing of the hospital, that one unit, conventional philosophy sees itself and views this one unit of the hospital as entirely mediated and indeed controlled and assessed by itself. Conventional Philosophy calls this power for Omni presence and Omni potency, so far her decisions and what must be dealt with on the unit, thought.

Yet, another orientation is more concerned with the discerning of the various units, the various wings of the hospital, say. The difficulty involved in speaking about the distinction between the one unit and the hospital that has a bunch of units in it, is that by virtue of the conventional view which sees its wing of the hospital as involving the potential for thought to entertain everything that is in the hospital, it views it’s one wing as indeed the whole hospital. 

The problem with that is, say that this one wing that the doctor views as encompassing the whole of the hospital is a pediatric wing.  so all of existence is viewed through pediatrics. The problem with this is not necessarily in the details, it is in the application of theory and medicine. The problem concerns what is being done. 


Conventional philosophy would say that if I’m going to make a philosophical analogy then I have to take it all the way to its end to make some sort of argument about why this particular analogy holds water for what I might be claiming. Yet, I submit when we are talking about viewing the situation, analogies are only meant to begin, and not to reduce toward and argumentative end. One could even say that the end of history is perpetually produced through conventional philosophy. (Hence Marxist economics and the plethora of religious theologies and that reproduce it). 

So likewise is this post about the idea of “claims”, or “philosophical claims”, because that’s what struck me in the essay that was written about Benjamin to which there is a link within the linked post of my post. lol. One of the first things the author says is about claims, and I think that this idea of philosophical claims is, not flawed necessarily, but at least indicates what I mean by orientation.


Yeah maybe it’ll be at least three parts. 

Part 2: The notion of claims, ideas, and the central thinker.

Part 3: The relation to Hillmans psychology. 

Leave a Reply

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

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