Sometimes I feel like I’m teetering on the edge of madness.
Such is the way of things for philosophers who haven’t been taken captive by party-spirit.
For the rest of us the right philosophical path isn’t so obvious. And so we are left with the decision: where will I spend my time and energy, philosophically speaking? To make the choice for something is at once to say no to many many others. The way forward is inherently risky.
Here we do not have the luxury of recourse to philosophy or reason as a guide, for the very question at hand is “whose reason and whose philosophy will I submit myself and be initiated into?”
I can only laugh at the hubris of those folks who rally around the flag of reason and enlightenment with tears in the eyes and their hands on the hearts.
Don’t take these ruminations as an endorsement of skepticism or unreason. Quite the contrary. I find myself evermore skeptical of skepticism. Skepticisms of various kinds are traditions to be submitted to and be formed by.
There are then three kinds of skeptics: (1) those who recognize this and take responsibility for it, (2) those who are ignorant and (3) those who are existentially dishonest.
When I watch people fall ass-backwards into the soft and comfy chair of an old and friendly skepticism, I’m left cold and unimpressed. Usually the folks who do this imagine themselves as brave and noble.
Instead, it is the intellectual equivalent of downing a cheese burger. Tasty, yes. Rebellious, if you’re in room full of health nuts. But it is hardly worthy of congratulations. And if you do it too often it will probably kill you.
The truly philosophical life is a kind of existential journey through a dangerous land. And the journey begins with the questions like, Which of these maps will I trust? Whose report on the dangers which lie ahead will I listen too?
I strongly suspect that most of what gets passed off as philosophy isn’t.