Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nick Gall's avatar

'These might be called “unfolding” conversations, as in opening up an infinite map for the first time: endless fascinating new territory is revealed.'

Love the wisdom expressed in your essay. However, the metaphor of unfolding doesn't resonate with me. It suggests a map that is already complete and our actions and thoughts merely reveal what is already mapped out. I resonate with the metaphor of "ramifying" conversation — perpetually branching off in new, uncharted (unmapped) directions. Of course, what inspired this resonance with ramifying conversation was the philosophy of Richard Rorty.

«To see keeping a conversation going as a sufficient aim of philosophy, to see wisdom as consisting in the ability to sustain a conversation, is to see human beings as generators of new descriptions rather than beings one hopes to be able to describe accurately.

That is why "existentialism"—and, more generally, edifying philosophy—can be only reactive, why it falls into self-deception whenever it tries to do more than *send the conversation off in new directions*. Such new directions may, perhaps, engender new normal discourses, new sciences, new philosophical research programs, and thus new objective truths. But they are not the point of edifying philosophy, only accidental byproducts. The point is always the same— to perform the social function which Dewey called "breaking the crust of convention," preventing man from deluding himself with the notion that he knows himself, or anything else, except under optional descriptions.»

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?