Me and philosophy
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:38 pm
As a philosopher I place myself above any living philosopher, including those that lectured me as a post grad. I place myself above any living philosopher necessarily. Those who know me will also know this to be true. Those who don't know me may, will, find out for themselves.
The philosopher is more insightful than the scientist, but I have yet to find a philosopher more insightful, more intuitive, more inventive, than me. There are three possible reasons for this.
The first reason is that I am the best philosopher. I reject this as it implies that I am merely contingently and not necessarily better than any living philosopher. The second reason is that I am, after Badiou, an antiphilosopher who trumps the philosopher at every turn. The third reason is that I am Wittgenstein. The latter two claims I am comfortable with. The antiphilosopher has a little of the mystic about him, a little of of the Bard or at least an appreciation of, a deferral to, that fellow. The antiphilosopher is a transcendental idealist, who places sense above truth. Kant and Wittgenstein were not philosophers. They were anti-philosophers who thought that they ranked among philosophers. Kant and Wittgenstein were necessarily and not merely contingently better than their philosopher friends and enemies. As for Wittgenstein, he died 18 months before I was born and we, I, share the same physical difficulties, lived in the same places, shared the same skills, hobbies and talents, and least of all, had similar sounding names.
So to people here I could not be less modest than to say make the most of this opportunity.
The philosopher is more insightful than the scientist, but I have yet to find a philosopher more insightful, more intuitive, more inventive, than me. There are three possible reasons for this.
The first reason is that I am the best philosopher. I reject this as it implies that I am merely contingently and not necessarily better than any living philosopher. The second reason is that I am, after Badiou, an antiphilosopher who trumps the philosopher at every turn. The third reason is that I am Wittgenstein. The latter two claims I am comfortable with. The antiphilosopher has a little of the mystic about him, a little of of the Bard or at least an appreciation of, a deferral to, that fellow. The antiphilosopher is a transcendental idealist, who places sense above truth. Kant and Wittgenstein were not philosophers. They were anti-philosophers who thought that they ranked among philosophers. Kant and Wittgenstein were necessarily and not merely contingently better than their philosopher friends and enemies. As for Wittgenstein, he died 18 months before I was born and we, I, share the same physical difficulties, lived in the same places, shared the same skills, hobbies and talents, and least of all, had similar sounding names.
So to people here I could not be less modest than to say make the most of this opportunity.