Philosophy vs philosophy - on writing (hardcore) philosophy and Steemit
I simply like it. Philosophy. I've been studying it for the larger part of my life, I teach it, and I write it. This may make me nerdy, or at least a little bit strange. But when some time ago I found Steemit, naturally I started to look for people who are also interested in philosophy, who write philosophy. Quickly I realised that there are at least many people who write posts labelled 'philosophy'... But is that what I am looking for?
There is philosophy and there is philosophy.
I am also not sure what I'm looking for in a post that is labelled 'philosophy'. Deep thinking, questioning reality, taking insights from philosophers and applying them to one's own life. And sometimes I do find posts that do that. That take the time to think, to invite the reader to consider a thought, a combination of thoughts. That reflect on a philosophical work, that bring philosophical concepts to life.
Posts that question the epistemology or ontology of being on Steem, for instance
But mostly what is labelled as 'philosophy', are opinions. Are points of view, are what @bex-dk in her post on the perils of freewriting calls writing that was "never intended as something to be shared with the world in their raw state". And perhaps this is something to take into consideration. Especially when it comes to 'philosophy'.
Philosophical writing means a lot of editing
Writing is a lonely business, no matter what kind of writing you do, and getting other people to join in, read your work and comment positively on it, is very satisfying. But, as I mentioned before, the end of the commercialisation of writing is perhaps at hand, and that is a good thing. But telling people they wrote a nice post, when all they did was a freewrite - merely putting thoughts on paper to find out what they are thinking - this is not what I consider philosophy. And it stings, when I see that being called philosophy. Even though I don't want to judge, there is this feeling.
The feeling that you get when someone who claims to be a published and acclaimed writer, only to read their post being a random string of general statements, interspersed with a lot of pictures amassed on the internet. The feeling you get when reading a very interesting plot, which could have been a marvellous story, only to see its potential for greatness not being met, due to a lack of attention or a lack of editing skills.
Not everything has to be philosophy, that's for sure. (But if you translate this to writing, saying 'not everything has to be great writing' makes less sense...) And there are also very different types of philosophy. Let me give you two examples, by introducing you to the two books I've written in the past year and that will be published in 2018. One is philosophy for a general audience, people who don't have a background in philosophy but who are interested in it. The other is a book I think nobody without a philosophy background will enjoy reading, and of all the philosophers I know, only a few of them will actually want to finish it.
Philosophy for general audience
In a few months a book will be published called 'Diagnosis of the Modern Philosopher - Why Philosophers are Mad' (in Dutch). It has taken me about three years from the moment I conceived of the idea to the moment of publishing. I consider this to be really fast. It will be published by a Dutch publishing house that is specialised in philosophical works and who publish a lot of Aristotle and Spinoza, and also wants to branch out into more generalized philosophy of young writers. I'm very happy they liked my work to be included there, and the editing process has been long but good. Rigour and honesty, and also understanding the overall goal of the book.
That goal could be described as: questioning the psychiatric assumptions underlying the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) of the Association of Psychiatrics, kind of the Bible for mental disorders, defining what is crazy and what is not. Taking those definitions as a starting point, I show how a serious thinker / philosopher naturally will be autistic, anorexic, have delusional disorders and some seven other disorders. While showing that, I also introduce the reader to contemporary philosophy. Yes, there is some Plato involved, but I explain a lot of philosophy of Levinas, Lyotard, Heidegger, Derrida, and many more.
So it is definitely philosophy, as it takes a lot of the material from philosophers and uses it to build another argument. But it is also low-key, taking the reader along while explaining philosophical terms extensively, linking it to contemporary movies and literature. Making philosophy come alive. At least, this is what I intend to do, and at least the publisher agreed that I manage to do that a little. Let's wait for the general audience to respond to see if this is really true.
So general philosophy, and it may or may not reach this goal, intends to introduce philosophical concepts, thoughts and in general a philosophical attitude, by inspiring people to think about their own lives in this manner.
Some examples of books who manage to do this well:
- Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault
- Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self
- Costica Bradatan, Dying for Ideas: The Dangerous Lives of the Philosophers
Hardcore Philosophy
Not really an actual term I've heard being used anywhere, but this is how I think of the philosophy written for philosophers. I'm not talking about academic papers in philosophy - that is another genre altogether and I prefer not to think about that. (Something with deadlines approaching...) I'm talking about philosophy written by philosophers to create something original, new thought, acknowledging and understanding how it has grown from the thought that has preceded it. Something that needs a lot of time, that is not meant for general public, simply because it requires to much philosophical understanding to read it. Not everything is explained from the ground up, but a certain basic level is assumed. In it, references will be made that refer to a whole body of work as a side note, and the author expects the reader to do their own homework. This is what I call hardcore philosophy. It is pushing the limits of thought. Of ability.
Source: blog
I like this example, about Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logicus-Philosophicus, which was Wittgensteins sole published philosophy book during his life time. "It was examined in 1929 by Russell and Moore; at the end of the thesis defence, Wittgenstein clapped the two examiners on the shoulder and said, "Don't worry, I know you'll never understand it." Moore wrote in the examiner's report: "I myself consider that this is a work of genius; but, even if I am completely mistaken and it is nothing of the sort, it is well above the standard required for the Ph.D. degree."" (Source: Wikipedia)
My second book to be published in 2018 is what I would consider 'hardcore' philosophy. I've worked on it for 10 years. So it seems like 2018 will be a productive year, with two books coming out, but this is merely a coincidence. I'm very lucky to have now found publishers for these works, that's all. An earlier version of this work was submitted as a dissertation to obtain my PhD (in the summer of 2015). I don't expect people to understand it per se. But it is a very important work to me, as it tries to bring together thought from philosophers that are for a large part still alive, but who think they don't agree with each other. It is the culmination of all my studies, my passion, my own development as a thinker. It is called 'The Necessity of the Impossible', and will be published by a small publishing house whose aims very much align with mine - to publish that what deserves to be published, and where economic value is the least important type of value. This is not to suggest that this book is genius. It might be a lot of non-sense. And even my best friends, or those I considered to be my best friends, have told me it cannot be published as it doesn't explain to the reader what is going on.
The impossible cannot be explained. And that is frustrating, when you want to simply read a book and move on to the next. But I've found, the most rewarding books in life are those that cannot be simply read. But are texts that grow on you, that make you be who you are.
I could give you a list of books that have influenced me like that, but will keep that for the next post.
Steemit and Hardcore Philosophy
Maybe needless to say, but Steemit is probably not the best place for hardcore philosophy. Not at the moment at least. But it might be in the future. Just like the very specialised posts on cryptocurrency that I don't understand, there might come a time that there are more of such specialised corners on the blockchain. And I do hope there will be a special place for hardcore philosophy as well. Where discussions are able to take place that blow your mind, instead of blowing each other up. Where it is not opinions and points of view that are appreciated, but the creativity of mind that is rewarded.
p.s. I'm still looking for an English publisher for the English version (which is all ready) of 'Diagnosis of the Contemporary Philosopher - On Why Philosophers are Crazy' * hint *
welcome to the club of highly specialized content. :-)
I hear you. Everything you said resonated with me and I can say "yes". On the other hand, it is a very personal perspective what one calls "philosophical" when the goal is to get insight and to understand a concept which then one wants to apply to ones daily life. For me no concept is worth a lot if this connection cannot be made. For me philosophy should provide this connection - Reading philosophical ideas for the sake being able to talk about them and share knowledge but drop it on the next occasion when something else appears around the corner doesn't make much sense.
I want to DO something with it. But then ... what actually is DOING? When my mind gets influenced by philosophical matter in a for me relevant way I may already act differently compared to the state of mind I had before.
I connect philosophy to ethics. .... Probably I connect everything with ethics :-) Philosophers and their ideas and concepts accompany our civilizations now for thousands of years.
Some people come up with thoughts and concepts they authored for the first time. Because they might never have heard that their thoughts already were thought by others. Does that make them lesser? Who has the "Authority"? The definition of an author could be: it is a person who formulated a concept out of his own assumption which he proved to be right through his experiences and then published it and people got to gain consensus about it.
In contradiction to what I've said philosophy serves also just having an entertaining time. Like solving riddles. Scratching the surface during having dinner and then talking about the next topic. The very fact that I cannot always be deep down into something is what makes the diving into so worthwhile.
So the two groups you mentioned: those who did not rise to their full potential and those who do are always in place. You and I do concentrate on both of them. One day it stings, the other day it delights. Or take not a day but an hour or a minute.
The difficulty with specialized content is to find a common language. Nowadays (wonder how long this already lasts) we talk about "Fachidioten" (nerds, geeks, one train-specialists) who cannot overcome the disciplines and share their good potentials.
I myself would like to have commentators who like to follow what I say and who engage with the delivered content. But: If there are too many, the interactions would suffer, the same with not enough, than also I suffer. Question for me is: what is enough?
For you as a philosopher it seems to be quite difficult to find a topic to talk about when you have two upcoming books you'd like to refer to and be them the matter of exchange and debate ... ?
What do you want your reader to think and maybe do when he has finished your book? Is there any change you hope for?
I know that are mean questions :-)
Thank you! Those are not mean questions at all. I do hope for some change, some form of (re)new(ed) thinking on their own lives.
I agree with what you say, how philosophy needs to be always connected to one's life. That's also very much how I look at it, because I don't see any other way (which is also why I wrote that book... if you take thinking & living seriously, it affects who you are, what you do, what you want, so in that sense it is a dangerous thing, thinking. Dangerous regarding your own mental health, that is.)
So both the 'hardcore' and the 'general' book I mention, are personal, and talking about philosophy-as-a-living-experience. Yet they are also completely different, mostly as to level of discourse.
I don't understand what you mean with this... can you clarify?
And yes, the Fachidioten are very familiar. I wouldn't like being one, but teaching in non-philosophy surroundings keeps me from falling into that trap. I love that what seems so normal, what I can talk about with fellow philosophers and we all agree, all of a sudden turns out to be bizar when a seemingly simple question of a student rips it apart (often without them noticing!).
Steemit could also be such a place. And it would be very nice to find a small group of people who is willing & interested in providing such kind of feedback to each other's thinking. Asking good questions, instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing. To do that, does take skill. Especially when it comes to written environments.
totally so! I agree ever so much about your last paragraph! LOL - yes, it takes skills. I often thought about that and do it most of the times when I published an article. I am more interested in the questions arising then in the agreement, though it feels nice but is quickly eaten up and needs a constant refill (which the Buddhists name "greed"). I guess I and most people are not very well trained in rising good questions, rather we were educated in teaching and giving information and opinions. My profession gives me chances to question my clients and sometimes I see that questioning makes people mad.
clarification:
When I wrote that sentence I was thinking about an author being asked about his book. The only answer one can give is: Read the book. Then we can talk. Same with musicians. Being asked about what their music should give one should listen to it and reveal what kinds of feelings and thoughts it provokes.
What I see in you and in me is that we'd like to take influence on how humans perceive the world. To give back to an audience or to the people we are in physical touch with what we've learned through others (idols, role models etc.). I feel graceful to the ones who provided me with knowledge and support of what I think was and is needed.
Can you explain more what you meant by the danger you mentioned? An example of that popped up in my mind from the book "Zen and the art of maintaining a motorcycle" - could this be meant what you say about mental health? I hope you know the book :-)
Yes, it's very much about how to perceive the world. And I don't like to say 'this is right and that is not', more like Socrates, simply pointing out the structure of thought, one's assumptions that are often never questioned, and leaving it open for someone to change or not.
The danger is, in short, that by pushing the limits of how you connect to the world around you, for instance by completely questioning the essence of definitions, or the ontological status of a question, you can lose touch with reality. That is different from becoming a Fachidiot. It is more like being completely lost, and feeling alienated even from your own conception of self. That can be pretty dangerous if it continues for a longer time....
I do know of the book, but is still on my TBR pile...
And yes, it's hard talking about something you've written and researched extensively to people who are new to the idea. At least, I can do the elevator pitch. But beyond that, it's often more like... "read the book".
It's also why I tend to not talk about the book I'm writing at the moment. It can ruin a good idea, to have people spout unthoughtful opinions, when you're still exploring it.
not wanting to hurt the baby ;-) I understand.
Thanks for explaining. I again must agree. Insanity can arise, yes, and losing connection to how to live and act in the world is really scary, I guess. We wouldn't know if we were not having glimpses of this state of mind or having witnessed others in becoming insane in one way or the other.
... though the insane ones are the most interesting, no?
Yes, Insanity and Genius are also in a way difficult to distinguish. Russell wrote this about Wittgenstein: also from Wikipedia:
Russell soon came to believe that Wittgenstein was a genius, especially after he had examined Wittgenstein's written work. He wrote in November 1911 that he had at first thought Wittgenstein might be a crank, but soon decided he was a genius: "Some of his early views made the decision difficult. He maintained, for example, at one time that all existential propositions are meaningless. This was in a lecture room, and I invited him to consider the proposition: 'There is no hippopotamus in this room at present.' When he refused to believe this, I looked under all the desks without finding one; but he remained unconvinced."[96] Three months after Wittgenstein's arrival Russell told Morrell: "I love him & feel he will solve the problems I am too old to solve ... He is the young man one hopes for."
Very glad to have you here @nobyeni!
I found you from the philosophy steemit.chat . That was being managed by someone who left only after a few days, never to return. And @mobbs is left there moderating it for spam. Unfortunately most of the humanities people don't stick around, they quit early when they don't see rewards. Seems odd, considering how their work often demands great toil for little reward, but they can't seem to extrapolate that on steemit.
I and 3 other people created a humanities group, called @steemdeepthink, modeled after steemSTEM, but it failed (although we still run our discord group), mostly due to the aforementioned reason: humanities writers disperse, they don't cohere or stick around.
Anyway, glad to have made a connection with you, I have followed you and I will be reading more of your stuff. You seem like a knowledgeable and interesting person. I've written some philosophy myself if you scroll down my blog.
Hi @alexander.alexis! Thank you so much for replying! It's great to make your acquaintance. I've been actually wondering about where all the humanities people are... I guess if that were my only passion, I would also have left Steemit already, seeing there are not many of them around to start good conversations in that specialty.
As a new member, it's also not easy to find your way around and find the people you might want to find. So I decided to give it some time. Looking forward to reading through your blog and I will look up @steemdeepthink - sounds like a very good initiative!
And yes, part of the problem is a lot of people in humanities seem very interested only in their own opinions, and not so much in conversations and growing of thought. So I'm not very surprised it failed. But perhaps it needs more time and some new people to join?
Thanks again for the comment, looking forward!
I believe that a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best both for the body and the mind.
- Albert Einstein
This is very well articulated.
Thanks to @ghulammujtaba, this post was resteemed and highlighted in today's bonus edition of The Daily Sneak.
Thank you for your efforts to create quality content!