A Personal Philosophy, Ill Defined

Connection. Resilience. Isolation. Strength. Rationality against or aligned with reason? Self-evaluation in the near absence of external input. Purpose and motivation. Contentment in despair. The freeing influence of meaninglessness on one’s ability to be authentic and real. I hope to explore these topics here, perhaps along with some tangential considerations if my body is up to the task of some extensive typing.

I don’t believe I see myself with the clarity that an audience would any more than I would claim to deserve an audience for evaluation. I can be certain such an experience would be rife with pain. But among it might lie a tinge of truth so as to make the suffering worthwhile. The crushing cruelty may yet be endured if the strength of hope is provided from the same source, as it seems to be the only source because the potential others seem to me to be silent.

I claim no worthiness of reverance but nor do I accept vitriolic condemnation. Hate me for difference if you want, but there are many accusations that could be levied against me, for which I would suffer as a result, that have no truth in them at all. If I am accused of rape, I am imprisoned, unpersoned, cancelled, alienated, charged, fined, all without a shred of evidence beyond the claim of another. I would not violate like that, but a man’s principles and his dedication to upholding them are not so readily ascertained.

I accept that I am a pariah with the understanding of the socially unacceptable nature of the questions I pose. I wish to tread where others utterly refuse. I am an offense for where I permit my thoughts to venture. I am labeled defective for the mechanisms which drive me. Not for criminality or perversion, but for failure to fit the mold. I cannot cease my thought. I cannot erase my memory. Are these disabilities or superpowers? They make me different, but I do not uphold myself as a righteous judge that I should pronounce any declaration.

And so I seek connection, a kindred soul who could elucidate that which I am blind to by virtue of my limited perspective. But I see this world. I see the claws, pincers, fangs, venom, and toxins of nature and the many other evils of it which tell me how dangerous is my pursuit. I see the risk and accept it with little to lose but things upon which I place only a bittersweet value. What merit is there to living if I abandon it’s potential for some substitution? But when so many have chosen the substitutions, my desires render me the outcast.

But I am strong. My god, if I had one, I am strong. I have survived untenable tragedy. I have endured struggles not often matched or exceeded with a frequency that implies I was complicit to some degree in bringing about these horrors based on the pattern alone. If I am so often surrounded by fire, I would think it reasonable to assume I may somehow be failing to recall having started some of them. My memory is despicable in it’s breadth and depth while yet granting me a view of my life that few seem to express relation to by virtue of their actions and behaviors.

Is what I see from others truly indicative of life? Are the patterns they operate among validated by the expanse of representation? Is their defiance of reason and logic merited by the benefits of their forgetfulness or are they early symptoms of a profoundly insidious plot failing to conceal to me it’s intended outcome? I refuse to elevate myself. I will not consider myself above my peers because I know no good thing comes from such illogical fallacies and magical thinking. I may argue my perspective, but a lack of retort does not fortify my position so much as highlight my isolation.

If there is anyone I admired from their story alone, it is Socrates. No more modern thinker has my admiration as he does, and my exposure to more recent philosophers has only disappointed me. As comparing a banana duct taped to a wall to the statue of David, I find much of history so insipid. Despite this, archeology still fascinates me intensely, with the entire community apt to be swayed entirely by a single conclusive discovery.

That, to me, is the appeal of archeology. A community accepting the best guesses based on available evidence, always ready to find more and reformulate their thoughts in light of new and unexpected information. A community can consider with far greater accuracy the evidence evaluated by any individual. So am I rational? Does my reason stand against debate? How can I know in isolation? It makes sense to me, but how can evaluate my own senses without external input?

Thus my purpose reoriented to connection. My motivation to seek connection grew in accordance with my own acceptance of the individual shortcomings of which I had no hope of overcoming. But in coming to that new plateau, I found new challenge. I am utterly lacking in the skill of connection from a place of genuineness. I could connect as a sociopath, feigning to live the ideals of the individual with whom I conversed, but without my own personal satisfaction. I lived lies I could not maintain because I did not know any other way. But now I do.

Now I am me. I am my honest and genuine self as I have never been before, and I refuse to return to the methods which only provided a temporary and insufficient relief from my pain. I accept that I am different, that the entirety of my vision is difficult to communicate in words, and that so much of what I am sounds like utmost despair to a mind based on common foundations. I am content with what I stand upon and I stand behind my words. What I say today, I mean like never before, and I will defend my words against all accusation if only to show I am not as different from you as I might seem.

Our commonalities and shared sensations are opportunities. I know fear like few seem to, but I would not contest that from my ignorance of your personal experience. But with that fear I have come to know the opposite, a degree of triumph I see few operating with. My greatest victory has been coming to accept who I am and the validity thereof. Abandoning the judgements of the world and society has allowed me to express myself as I am, and I am not ashamed as the world so long told me I should be.

I am real. Regardless of who you are, somewhere deep down, I believe you are too. So I seek the one who would be real with me, despising the paths laid out by power to forge their own authentic meaning in a world of distraction. Someone willing to dive into the depths of metaphor, engage in uncomfortable thought for the rewards offered by such risk, and evaluate with the intent of seeking their own highest potential. I don’t seek someone “great,” only someone real and authentic. That is a form of greatness for which I feel the world forbids recognition.

I like to think I explained sufficiently what I am after, so what do you seek?

Lo and behold, my wrists held for this exercise, hopefully not one in futility. Thank you for reading and even more so for response.

“The philosopher cannot lead an absolutely solitary life because legitimate ‘subjective certainty’ and the ‘subjective certainty’ of the lunatic are indistinguishable. Genuine certainty must be ‘inter-subjective.’ […P]hilosophy in the original meaning of the term is nothing but knowledge of one’s ignorance. The ‘subjective certainty’ that one does not know coincides with the ‘objective truth’ of that certainty. But one cannot know that one does not know without knowing what one does not know. What Pascal said with
antiphilosophic intent about the impotence of both dogmatism and scepticism, is the only possible justification of philosophy which as such is neither dogmatic nor sceptic, and still less ‘decisionist,’ but zetetic (or skeptic in the original sense of the term). Philosophy as such is nothing but genuine awareness of the problems, i.e., of the fundamental and comprehensive problems. […] Xenophon indicates in the Hiero that the motivation of the philosophic life is the desire for being honored or admired by a small minority, and ultimately the desire for ‘self -admiration,’ […but] the self-satisfied philosopher is as such not distinguishable from the self-satisfied lunatic. The philosopher is then necessarily concerned with approval or admiration by others and he cannot help being pleased with it when he gets it. It is practically impossible to say whether the primary motive of the philosopher is the desire for admiration or the desire for the pleasures deriving from understanding. The very distinction has no practical meaning unless we gratuitously assume that there is an omniscient God who demands from men a pure heart.
[…] Philosophy, being knowledge of our ignorance regarding the most important things, is impossible without some knowledge regarding the most important things. By realizing that we are ignorant of the most important things, we realize at the same time that the most important thing for us, or the one thing needful, is quest for knowledge of the most important things, or philosophy. In other words, we realize that only by philosophizing can man’s soul become well-ordered. We know how ugly or deformed a boaster’s soul is; but everyone who thinks that he knows, while in truth he does not, is a boaster. Still, observations of this kind do not prove the assumption, for example, that the well-ordered soul is more akin to the eternal order, or to the eternal cause or causes of the whole, than is the chaotic soul. And one does not have to make that assumption in order to be a philosopher, as is shown by Democritus and other pre-Socratics, to say nothing of the moderns. If one does not make the assumption mentioned, one will be forced, it seems, to explain the philosopher’s desire to communicate his thoughts by his need for remedying the deficiency of ‘subjective certainty’ or by his desire for recognition or by his human kindness. We must leave it open whether one can thus explain, without being forced to use ad hoc hypotheses, the immediate pleasure which the philosopher experiences when he sees a well-ordered soul or the immediate pleasure which we experience when we observe signs of human nobility.” (Leo Strauss, What Is Political Philosophy?, “Restatement on Xenophon’s Hiero”.)

“[I]t is the investigation of […] the human soul, that promises […] to give privileged access to the reality shared by all beings; in this respect the Nietzschean turn resembles the Socratic turn described in the Phaedo and the Symposium. And with Nietzsche too it is not simply the human soul that the philosopher investigates but the different character of the soul he finds within himself, the soul of the driven knower.” (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche’s Task, pages 19-20.)

Truth is truth. The only question is how do you limit the context so that more individuated truths will begin to appear.

All else is nonsense, psychologism, wishful thinking, utilitarian or fear-based conformity or simple laziness.

Well that was certainly a philosophical pleasure to read. Not sure if I’m doing it right, but I suppose that’s the point? Brilliantly put, thank you very much for your contribution!

I could be considered agnostic with deistic leanings. Whether there is a higher power does not, to me, seem to bear significant weight on the matters of purity, virtue, and love. Need man be told he must be good? Is not the guilt of wrongdoing sufficient to demonstrate to the individual a cost of evil choices? Having been so violated, what would drive a man to be the very monster he should despise?

But so much of life seems to me to be subject to a biased cost/benefit analysis. And there appear to be those who are devoid of guilt which make only the risk of capture and punishment the cost for their vile pursuits. I don’t hope to fully understand these things.

Like you said, “one cannot know that one does not know without knowing what one does not know.” I know I cannot know, but what I can, I would like to. Particularly if new knowledge would mitigate the damage I cause in my ignorance and stupidity.

It may be the truth that I am lazy :smiling_face_with_tear: