The Rational Postulate of Philosophical Ignorance

I am currently studying a book by Christine Korsgaard called Self-Constitution. (2013).

Often when I read philosophy I am reiterated the whole of my work. I come upon in one thought a sort of logical outline of a complete branch of the work.

By some estimates the whole work will take about 8 lifetimes, considering that the first 26 years of each lifetime is spent determining whether thinking will have a place or not, and given that the usual lifetime would be around 60 years, the median lifetime of a useful philosopher. The lifetimes I chose to not think are not included in my count, so, in truth, to write the whole of my work could take hundreds of lifetimes, even while the philosophical content would only take 7-8.

As I was taken along this path for this book, having rounded the last quarter of it, I was reminded of the maxim ‘it is not the quality of thinking that equates to readership.’

Rather, it more concerns two aspects that have little to do with the quality of the argument. (1) The willingness of the author to give herself to real capitulation, (2) the chance of any young fashion to grab a hold of an author, which goes to the dictates of capitalism.

This verifies that one does not write a substantial philosophy because they make a good argument. A substantial philosophy, by definition, is that philosophy which is used for any moment. It is the substance from which sense is come upon.

Following this formula we can notice that often writers of even 10 years ago are understood currently in a manner drastically different than what ever the philosophy meant 10 years ago. The very idea that the argument we entertain and discuss today have any semblance to those had in the past is a formation of the philosophical situation now. Whatever the philosopher meant in their book 100 years ago, say, is lost, not because their meaning is inaccessible to thought today, but rather because of the intellectual fashion and the effect it has on people’s ability to think.

This is the usual condition of philosophy and this problem forms the basis of every substantial philosophical proposal, however it is worded, for the current fashion’s ability to think from the terms, in contrast to thinking from the subject upon the terms. This with reference to thinking involving a subject of terms.

What are the terms of the real agreement?

$$$$$$$$

What I was going to write is lost in as much as the work will never be read currently due to the substantial philosophical content contained necessarily.

Hence the reason for the work.

The reality of mental health and it’s philosophical truth does not arise in fashion; indeed it is most often missed. Just as all subjects are missed in the postulate of subjectivity.

But that is another philosophical question: Rationality missed in the ignorance that is the thought un-thought. Philosophy cannot address it; it is but through the reflective consideration of mental health that the philosophical truth is able to be noticed for its substance, that is, what philosophy presents truly as the subject.

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: