Saturday 16 August 2008
Philosophy's Fading Light
One of the supremely rewarding and invigorating things about finding the Cheating the Ferryman Thesis, was the manner in which it both drew from, and gave to, the discipline of Philosophy. The dyad and the Bohmian Imax not only "fit in" with the main branches of philosophy, but actually answered them. They enriched and informed the areas of epistemology and phenomenology, which form the basic support for philosophical questions.
In America , New Age Phenomenology has turned its back on the elegant language and phraseology of philosophical discourse, betraying its truest ally. It has thereby gone quite astray. It has bitten the hand which best fed it, and it has softened considerably in the aftermath.
We philosophers tend to be outcasts: We are defending a classical tradition, which has its roots in antiquity. The philosopher, unless posting on blogs or forums specifically aimed at that esoteric breed known as "academic philosophers", is often treated as a dinner guest whom no one seems to know why, exactly, was extended an invitation. Tolerated, seen as slightly insane at times, and often ignored, because he drags the classical language from centuries ago into today's glaring light, and utters phrases which are not drenched in the popular culture of the fast -paced media, with its sound bites and jargon. Too often, the philosopher struggles valiantly against the tide of competing ideologies and disciplines more geared toward modernity, or postmodernity, until in bewildered silence he leaves, to slip once more into the shadows from whence he arose.
I have tried to be optimistic amidst the scorn with which American academia in general has treated this elegant and most beautiful of all disciplines. With patience, I have struggled to place Peakian theory within philosophical discourse with essays which I am aware do not have broad popular appeal. But feelings of foreboding and uneasiness push to the surface, become urgent, when I write posts for the ITLADian forum, and keep within the bounds of simplicity and brevity, and the purpose fails utterly. That purpose: To facilitate debate and discussion; to make Peakians/Itladians interested in the philosophical underpinnings of Tony's work; to share the excitement of Tony's uncanny ability to beckon, and to address, this elegant monster of antiquity. But I feel a certain sense of dismay - perhaps even alarm - as I see that this is not occurring. Unless Tony or his Philosopher can tell me what it is that I am doing wrong, the manner in which I am approaching the forum incorrectly, I am left to assume that philosophy's light is fading, not only in American culture, but in the Itladian culture as well. I hope that this does not prove to be the case.
Posted by SM Kovalinsky at 02:11