Try this: To decry academic philosophy is not to reject the practice of philosophic inquiry

I’m just trying to situate these ideas, that Kenny dies in so many episodes, and then with no explanation appear again, and that this is sensible enough.  Odd, but hey, it’s worked for 24 seasons, God knows how many episodes.  I’m trying to make this okay for Kant, in light of Kant’s sublime, or Hume or…

It might work  But that’s beside the point.  My real concern is that this works for me, and so, why?  If not, why not?  And for you the audience, me as part of that audience, it’s not only okay, it delights us enough that we continue watching.  For years.  Or at least enough of us are delighted that the series continues and Kenny isn’t written out of it.  Shit, he’s in his 30s.  I keep comparing him to Jesus but really, at this point, Kenny’s lived longer if you think of him as not resurrected, just keeping on keeping on.  That’s different than Jesus, the risen Jesus.

Irrespective of what Kant, or Husserl, or Heidegger have to say about it.  And, of course, they are all long dead.  They don’t have Kenny’s superpowers.

Does it make sense to us?  That’s the only question that matters really, at first.  It seems to, yes, it seems to make sense to us.  But do I love this work, this life?  That leaves me silent, and that’s a good thing.

Leave a reply on "Try this: To decry academic philosophy is not to reject the practice of philosophic inquiry"

A Problem in Philosophy

You so do not want to know what I’m reading…

It came to me as a question while reading Husserl’s Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness: why is this so correct and exact and yet not convincing?  Why do I need more than a philosophically sound argument, even one that I might judge to be correct in all its truth claims (even if it isn’t).

The issue may be one of practice, and philosophy is, in fact, a practice.  Phenomenology, beginning with the phenomenological reduction, is a precise practice.  It is satisfying and has led me to the more ancient practice of meditation, and seems almost indistinguishable from some meditative practices.

So this is not an argument supporting “the death of philosophy”.  I’m just arguing for philosophic practice to be one of embodiment and community, and the engaged philosopher.  There is indeed a philosophic community.  It is caricatured as a community of navel-gazers; that is how it is often characterized and ridiculed.  Maybe indeed the caricature needs to be appreciated for what it does, as any caricature does:  it exaggerates the actual traits that characterize the individual or the community.

The lack of extension, beyond oneself as an individual philosophizing and as a community that philosophizes, is what strikes me as problematic.  Yet here, with respect to time consciousness, we have a moment of intersection between physical sciences, theoretical physics, and neuroscience with philosophy.

Where can we meet and break bread together?

Well, yes, in movies.  See Babette’s Feast.

Leave a reply on "A Problem in Philosophy"