Article:
Mike's analysis is somehow technical to me. And I only cut two expressions he made as
reference.
1. Can metaphor play a serious and useful role in philosophical reasoning?
2. The purpose of philosophical reasoning should be to lead people to some truth. In order
to do this the reasoning must be clear and intelligible. Metaphors, in general, are far
from clear and intelligible.
I am not sure if what I am saying would be within the same topic as Mike talks. I hope
it's relevant:
Philosophy is not defined by the method/procedure/way people do it. Systematic or not,
clear or not, intelligible to everyone or not are side issues. They may facilitate
philosophical discussion. But they do not themselves determine what philosophical
activities should be.
Wittgenstein told people that the way he did philosophy was like making poetry. That is
the way he does it.
Philosophy may be defined by the consequence which it inspires on people. Philosophy
itself is a light, which you realise suddenly of its presence. Philosphy enlightens
people. Philosophy makes you view your existence from a new perspective.
I am not saying that any kinds of expressions can be philosophy. But poetry or novel are
good candidates or good instruments for philosophizing which I have no doubt.
What we need is to get to THAT point. What we use to get there is a thing with secondary
importance. Clarity is a relative notion. Technical clarity is an unbearable complexity to
laymen, as most journal philosophies do. Some people may find films or novels more
accessible means to reflection. That's why we have the grand pieces of the philosophy of
existentialism.
Understanding is not an absolute notion. It does not transport on one single path.
Philosohy is about life, and life is full of variations and possibilities. It would be
unwise to block our mind from those wonderful works, literary works of philosophy.
What we really need, is a hit on the head- if that's the only way to make me see things.¡@ |
|