Comment: I try to clarify what I said.

(See in situ)


I try to clarify what I said.

In your last two replies to me you have said:
"Ism's are just ways we categorize groups of ideas. Just because you feel that you fall into the category doesn't mean you didnt put the thought into it, or that your independent philosophical contribution doesn't lend itself to the greater overall philosophy."

"Ism is just a suffix dude. It is used to categorize bundles of ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't undermine anyone's ability to think. It just generally describes what some conclusions are that people have come to."

Okay, let's look at these opening statements of your replies. What I said was that a true/original thinker cannot be a supporter of any -isms. Now you say that 'ism' "just generally describes what some conclusions are that people have come to." Here you exactly make my point. 'Isms' are about conclusions as certain kind of answers which people can use. They easily become ready-made answers which make people less thoughtful. True/original thinking, that is, thinking which goes into the origins or into the fundamental truths, that is, into the first principles of those "bundles of ideas" or "groups of ideas" is not at all in the first place about "conclusions" but of beginnings (roots, origins, sources). 'Isms' take beginnings as ready-made like a belief and never start to dig like an archeologist into their ground of presuppositions.

You say that "there is nothing wrong with" 'ism' as "it doesn't undermine anyone's ability to think." The problem is that it does undermine person's ability to think, that is, to think radically [originally from the origins] in its etymological sense as going into the roots of matters in a way I just above explained.

You continue to help me in my reply to you as you bring up one -ism, that is, Scholasticism of which you say that "Scholasticism is a beautiful art form." Well, this statement might be true or wrong, or something in between, or even something else than that, but that is not the point. The point is that Scholasticism is a perfect example of what I mean. Scholasticism is 'bundle of ideas'. These ideas come basically from two sources, that is, from the Christian tradition and the Greek philosophy. But these two traditions do not come together in their original form but as Latin translations. Through this process of translating these traditions to Latin certain kind of ideas (concepts) are created which do not follow any more the original thought. Let's take Aristotle as an example. Aristotelianism of Scholastic thought is Latinized interpretation of Aristotle's thinking. What comes out of this process of translation as interpretation is very much a distortion of Aristotle. For example, the Greek "Ousia" is not the same as the Latin "Substantia" and the Greek "Dunamis" is not the same as the Latin "Potentia". The Latinization of the Greek philosophy has been very damaging to Greek thinking. Most of the English translations of Greek classics have been translated from the perspective of Latin terminology, not from the original Greek. What I mean by this is that the translators do not try to think these Greek concepts in their original manner but label them in their translations with these ready-made Latin terms and for that reason 'ousia' is for example translated as 'substance'. This same thing happens with Christian tradition as the Bible is translated into Latin and becomes the Vulgate. In both case the richness of the Greek thinking is simplified into Latin terms. What makes Scholasticism even worse is that true/original thinking needs freedom to think as originally as possible and Scholasticism did not give this freedom as anybody who thought truly originally or at least tried to think originally was always under the threat of being charged as a heretic.

Then if we take 'libertarianism'. Libertarianism does not think freedom originally/radically enough. How is it possible that we are free and what does it mean that we are free? Yes, it is true that our freedom is not given to us by any government as it is given to us by God or by our human nature. But what does this mean? Have libertarians thought God/Creator or human nature radically/originally enough? But then again is this even true: is our freedom really even given to us by God/Creator or by human nature? Is it possible that the source of freedom is something else? And if it is something else would that create different kind of thinking of Liberty? And here again open the abyss/vortex of questioning (to which I referred to in my previous 'rambling') which is the method/path of true/original thinking/philosophizing. Thinking is in the first place questioning, not about conclusions/answers, that is, about "ISMS".

I don't know if what I said now help you understand what I was previously trying to express, or did this make things even more "rambling" from your perspective?

By the way did you check out the list of my 6 favorite philosophers (1. Socrates, 2. Merleau-Ponty, 3. Heidegger, 4. Bachelard, 5. Osho and 6. Carlin) & my brief definitions of them below?

The question concerning the 'ism' I also investigate in my comments here in connection to 'existentialISM':
http://www.dailypaul.com/301206/are-we-existentialists-some-...

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--