“Cant you see that I am one with the cosmos!?..poquito ergo es…i think, therefore you is.”

Everyone agrees that philosophy, at root, is “the love of wisdom”. Yet, since the beginning of the 20th century, I feel, this meaning has been mostly lost. Philosophy has become an extended argument about definition; the purported wisdom of the ‘love of wisdom’ is understood in a context where the effort to find this lost love is supposed to be found in the effort of more precisely defining words.

Philosophers appear to be involved with stating their own definition of wisdom, and appealing to the common human sense of passion to imply the sense of love in their work, but I feel that this intention is but a weak reflection of what prior to the, say, mid-20th century, was an effort of integrity.

It has taken me some time, but I believe that this blog has been the effort to reveal the fallacy of the method of finding wisdom, let alone love.

However, due to the kind of modern philosophy which dominates the philosophy-sphere, I have abandoned the use of philosophy as a positive meaning of its truth, that is, the love of wisdom, which is merely a method of arguing over definition, to say that conventional philosophy is indeed valid in as much as this is the kind of philosophy that the modern method is able to procure, but that it is indeed merely one kind of philosophy, that is, a conventional method of philosophy.

Philosophy has split into two efforts.

So it is I leave the argument to what has been said thus far, and leave those conventional practitioners to their modern philosophical tasks; they are indeed vital, no irony intended.

Nonetheless, in the attempt to center love in wisdom I move to suggest the following, which is beginning to appear in my papers.

For a while now, philosophy has been concerned with the spirit. Indeed, so many papers have been written, known and unknown, popular and not, about the relationship with Western modern philosophy and spirit, it has almost become a trampled point. In short, it is not difficult to notice that the synthetical a priori, but indeed every philosophy which is an “-ism” and “-ology”, and every “philosophy of…” is based in the synthetical a priori despite what argument it would wish to make or definition which an argument would wish to tie to. There is nothing which arises outside of discourse, and discourse, in the modern orientation upon things, is merely another secret code word for thinking, a proxy, a sit-in, a dupe, a poseur, or as Kierkegaard might say, sleight of hand.

So I capitulate and admit that, yes, conventional philosophy, modern philosophy, or just philosophy, is only about spirit, its assertions and proclamations. It implies it, it uses it, it is invested in the spirit which is the reasoned intellect, the thinking mind, or otherwise, intentional phenomenal identity. It is all head, and no body; the head, in this conventional modern mode, uses and abuses the body yet stays in the head and enforces the head’s dictates through the spirit of modern philosophy.


I propose that philosophical anthropology concerns the soul. The body. This is to say, the soul of the body is excluded by definition, or, what I say, is the methodological orientation upon definition. So much as the spirit of the head is deemed the highest in the hierarchical structure for the determination of everything that can be thought, the soul is that which is excluded by virtue of what the head cannot see, cannot hear nor feel, conceptualize nor recognize when it is occurring, acting or even Being present. It is negated in the thought full pretext of the synthetical a priori. The philosophical spirit of the head never encounters the soul of the body because the modern spirit is consumed with itself: the Creation of the world in its own image.


Hence, I propose that the head misses the body, and the soul misses the spirit. and that they love each other. That True philosophy arises as the love of wisdom when the spirit and the soul are united. This is because they are –they exist– in love, but are held apart in the tragic life of the dejected and stubborn sprit.

This is my work. To bring together in love that which has been torn asunder by the insecure assertion of dominance of the lonely spirit.


Although Paulo Freire wrote about this some 50 years ago, It is beginning to be recognized lately.

The oppressor cannot itself find its way to liberation because it already sees itself, sees freedom, and everything else, through the context of oppression.

It is thus the task of the oppressed – the pedagogy of the oppressed — to shine the light toward liberation. The oppressed have the responsibility to liberate themselves, and in doing so, forge a path for the oppressor to be liberated. However, the oppressed must be careful that they do not continue the game of oppression, in which both the oppressor and the oppressed are caught, by being lured into becoming the oppressor.

It is the soul that has been oppressed. So it is the job of the soul to light the way for the spirit back to the love that is wisdom.

This is my work. .

————— Ps: how ironic is it that agter i wrote this piece about love that i just sent an email to WP and told them to fuck off! Lol.

I hope they dont bring the hammer down. On me. Lol


Spirituality is taken.











2 responses to “Soulituality”

  1. Philosophical Anthropology – mostly philosophy Avatar

    […] Philosophical Anthropology […]


    1. landzek Avatar

      Thank you. And you’re rad.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: