Should philosophy be considered sacred? Should people be urged to dabble in philosophy? This is hard to say. Why would it be considered sacred? Because there is nothing better than good philosophy, and nothing worse than the bad. What is kept sacred is inviolable, the most important thing. If this is not philosophy, then what is? Philosophy becomes very wide here, and seems to stand for any justification or criticism undertaken seriously. Thus it adjudicates over all reasoning on all issues, but not the facts. The truth is, one can do a lot with very general obvious facts and a keen mind. Consider that now philosophy has been taken over by those that put power and feelings before the truth. Now? Hasn’t this always been the case? But it is usually quite petty. They wish to appear smart and wise without being either. Their main task seems to be guarding their position above all else. It is so obvious that academic philosophy is basically worthless. Mutual delusion: when the nature of an interaction has more to do with an exchange that protects the ego of both parties, but not necessarily in the same way. For example, the student defers to the teacher, the teacher pretends the student is advancing, has helped them learn something and so on. With women and men: the woman has sex with the man, but generally makes him pay somehow, whether it be his dignity, time, money or otherwise. The woman benefits from the sex and the fact the man put the effort in and took the responsibility for the sex himself – the man feels more of a man having had sex with a woman. This exchange is not meaningless, sex is very rarely meaningless. Its meaning reveals something about its participants.
How does one go about researching for a definitive account of such-and-such in philosophy? I have already committed to a 100 work maximum. Therefore, some of my method will be arbitrary and spontaneous. This can add to the excitement of the project, making it less dry, and so is not totally a cop-out. After all, anything is always later subject to change. How should they be chosen? What should be read? What does one need to keep in mind? First of all, the more one reads on a topic, the more one finds endless repetition, especially on the big themes and those conceptual. Thus, a 100 work maximum should be an adequate benchmark for the first polished work.
At first I thought that creating a sort of hermeneutic circle using the bibliographies would suffice. That would give me a good idea that all interconnected books had been exhausted. Unfortunately, there is little way of telling that an entire other group of books exist that contribute greatly to the issue. No matter how many would eventually be included. Picking an arbitrary number allows me to publish, gain feedback, then amend every further edition. Thus, I think the best I can hope for is to compile a list of 100 works, drain them of their material and then go about re-arranging it for perspicuity and assessment. Because this thread’s purpose is research in philosophy, the writing of it will begin unorganized and progressively become more-so as principles are adduced from literature found.
What to do about bibliography? I will take a minimalist perspective – the least amount of information that gets the reader to the right book. I will eschew close or detailed citation. I will never plagiarize on principle, and, in any event, I am operating under the assumption that content trumps original author. Perhaps I can find a justification of citation somewhere where someone has laid it all out nicely.
The purpose of this blog will be to centralize shorter writings and musings of mine that lag a bit behind the more polished work of my books. Feel free to suggest topics in the comment section.
This post is to see my way around this software.