Here in Germany the autumn holidays started, so I have time to look after different things. The first one I read, following the referrers of my blog, is the usual shitty rain that rains from characters that I would call "The Raelians of the Internet", or to put it to Sgarbi "the religion of public employment".
So I will respond to several blogs that mention me, explaining why so much effort on their part is completely wasted. First, I started a blog in 2003, so you should understand that if you failed with these strategies, you might even assume that they don't work. But as Einstein said, madness is precisely the aptitude to repeat the same mistake while seeing the negative results that flow from it.
And so we start with the accusation of "madness". It would be credible if you did not (unsuccessfully) try to refute what I say. Because you see, the crazy ones don't refute them. Do not write articles about the madness of your country to refute what it says. You pity him, you have pity on him, often a sense of humanity drives you to treat him kindly, but no one wastes time in refuting "satan Troy" written on the walls of the Milan metro. He's just crazy.
On the contrary, when you took the time to refute someone, you recognized a philosophical position in his words. For this you refute it. But at this very moment, your accusation of madness becomes a medal, because all the philosophical positions that deserved this accusation were new and original.
I can distinguish a sufficient condition from a necessary one: I know very well that it is not enough to be called crazy to be new and original. Maybe you're seriously crazy. But when you are called crazy AND YOUR IDEAS ARE MENTIONED AND REFUTED, then you are in the case where the insanity charge is a medal of novelty and originality.
So I THANK everyone who writes about me that I'm crazy about the things I write, especially when they mention them and worry about refuting them, which you NEVER do with madmen in the psychiatric sense of the word.
Speaking of recognized philosophical positions, I read another rather bizarre accusation: I am accused of "doing philosophy but not wanting to admit it". This is interesting, because the accusation comes (as I read) from a guy who teaches history and philosophy in high schools.
Now, my first objection is that even if I did philosophy, you would be the last one to notice it. Just because you are a professor of philosophers.
And I wrote professor of philosophers, and not "of philosophy", because in high school and university we don't study "philosophy", but we study "philosophers". You are very good at demonstrating that by studying philosophers you learn philosophy: and I answer you that I am a god in bed, because I have watched and studied all of Siffredi's films.
To say that you know about philosophy because you have studied philosophers is like saying that you are good in bed because you watch all of Siffredi's films: the speech only works if you always go alone in bed.
So I repeat: a philosopher teacher would not know how to recognize philosophy even if he appeared naked in front of him and gave him a blowjob. So, if I did "philosophy", this character could not notice it, since he knows nothing about it.
And the failure of this scholastic system can be seen: for generations in almost all Italian high schools, philosophers are being studied (moreover, a very persuasive selection, but I get there later), but if I asked you which contemporary Italian philosophers will study in high schools in 100 years , you can't even list one. A catastrophic failure: after all, philosophy is not studied at school, philosophers are studied.
The reason why I do NOT do philosophy (and if you knew something about it, prof, you would understand) is that philosophy does not try to reach a conclusion, like mathematics or science: the purpose is dialogue, or if you prefer the debate. Philosophy strives to keep the debate open on a topic, introducing new perspectives, philosophical positions, etc.
On this blog (but also in yours, a sign that you don't even do philosophy) we try to reach a conclusion. And if you try to reach a conclusion, that is to say to close a speech with a clear position, you are NOT doing philosophy. Those who want to close the discussion are, I know, the mathematicians who when they demonstrate a theorem put a big point at the end and "QED" (or CVD, as used today). Another example is the physicists who do the experiment and say "hey, this theory is proven (or not)". And they close the conversation.
But philosophy does not do this: philosophy is an ongoing debate on issues that always remain open for new philosophers to contribute.
So no, this blog is NOT a philosophy because every post is trying to "close", to "conclude". And if you knew something about philosophy you would have noticed: unfortunately you studied philosophers, but not philosophy. And replicate the same catastrophe on your students. Congratulations.
But if we go on with the accusations that I move, I see that one of these is "to fall into contradiction". And this informs me of the poor choice of the portfolio of philosophers you teach: they all seem to be dedicated to the consistent logic, in practice of the Aristotelians who are convinced.
A sign that you have excluded (and since I remember the years of high school, it is an "ancient" choice) any philosopher is a paraconsistant , that is, any philosophy does not derive from Aristotle. All the Indian, Oriental and Islamic philosophy: and be careful that they are not four cats! Even today, the children of such philosophies are 70% of the human population. See you.
But the funny thing is that I could respond to your accusation of "contradicting me" by quoting your favorite philosopher
jerk , Hegel. I could tell you (citing the most expert ass lick that a real house has ever had) that when you see a "contradiction" in reality you are seeing "thesis" and "antithesis" that mate to give birth to a "synthesis". And you catch him where the doctor never saw the light of the sun. A sign that you have not even studied the philosophers you say you teach well: that I know Hegel is still "taught" in high schools. Where are you when the professor enters the classroom? Oops, I forgot that you are the professor.
This catastrophic aristotelata the "contradicts" leads me to write that the selection of philosophers who taught and 'least objectionable: the rest are the same as (in the "history" hours) teach boys that civilization' human born in Mesopotamia, without trying to go farther to the east, say from parts of China, and look at what was in the same period.
Exactly: teach a very provincial selection of philosophers.
Now the predictable reaction will be to say that yes, even if I do not pursue the ends of philosophy (that is, I try to reach a conclusion rather than 'continue the eternal debate), I use the methods.
And this shows how little you know about modern philosophy. Because the most catastrophic mistake of modern philosophy has been to develop a specific language . Not that I have anything against technical jargon: being a professional IT technician for 25 years, I know very well that most people don't understand what I say if I talk about work.
My problem with the fact that philosophy has developed a language, like every community, is that developing a technical language for philosophy makes no sense. First of all, a technical language is used to achieve precision, but precision serves to reach exact conclusions . Since philosophy does NOT intend to reach conclusions (exact or not) but feed a debate, of formal precision there is no need.
As if that were not enough, this also clashes with the philosophers you say you know: do you find two (of those "that matter") that used the same language? Are you trying to say that Nietzsche, Kant and Russell used the same language?
In terms of language, Nietzsche wrote pure fashion. His language made him the Jean Paul Gaultier of philosophy. If there was a fashion week for philosophers, Nietzsche would always win all the prizes. Do we want to compare it to a logical atomist like Russell? Compared to Nietzsche's Fashion writing, Russell looks like an exhibition of diver wetsuits. Hegel looks like a convoluted baroque craftsman, and Marx writes like a guy who tells the bartender that his wife betrays him. (When the bartender is his wife's lover.)
When EVERY philosopher has had his own peculiar language (it would be possible to use it as an identity card) to develop a language of philosophy used by all can be described as "dinosaurs that dance a sunset meteor shower": ok, do it too , but if the dance works then they are all yours.
For the record, the dance worked. Always works.
So no, in telling me that I "deny it but do philosophy" you are wrong both on the ends and on the method, demonstrating (in the fall) that not only of philosophy you do not know anything, but you know little also the philosophers you pretend to teach.
I invite you to listen to a person, a PhD of Philosophy who has abandoned the academic career (to do the transsexual youtuber: a valid alternative to work at McDonald's and the less gratifying public employment), and explains to you what are the problems of the "philosophy" of today, that is, of your approach, and why this approach makes it useless.
The ones he describes are those like you, or at least your professors.
And let's go to the effects of what you write: what is the "theme" of your "philosophy blog"? Mostly of NO-Euro delusions.
Now, the "no-euro" thinking in advanced 2019 is not "neither new nor original." It adds nothing to the debate, so no, you don't even do philosophy. And don't even use the right language. But the problem is that I can hear the same non-euro delirium in any bar, to the point that we could use it as a measure of blood alcohol level.
The police stops a car. The owner comes out, and the alcohol test begins. The first policeman asks the motorist what you think about the euro. The word "scam" is taken away half of the license points, when you get to "Germany" there is the revocation of the license, and to "strong powers" there are the seizure of the vehicle and the arrest.
|"Euro is a scam"||Two Spritz and one Moretti|
|"Only convenient to Germany"||Three moretti, a negroni and a Mojito|
|"The strong powers wanted it"||Shottini competition and 1 bottle of Vodka Gorbacheva|
You're nothing new: when I was the age of your students, the bars were full of guys with rectangular glasses, Unity / Manifesto under their arms, who invariably sentenced things like
- "Capitalism has at most five years of life, as predicted by Marx".
- "The ammeriga is at its final chapter and will disappear in a decade, due to its contradictions"
The millennialism of the still red wine glass.
Now, since I have prejudices against 5-year forecasts with a 30-year margin of error, you understand that today I find it very pathetic to see people in the blogosphere (the equivalent of the bar) holding a few newspapers "against" under the arm, ( or in the link strip) and comes up with the same sentences.
But do you really believe that you (you) can be taken seriously?
And I do not waste time refuting your theories, just because I think that if you leave the bridges in your head and continue to use them, you have 80% of the unsafe schools and you agree to send us the children, you are the fool.
And if you come to believe REALLY that without Germany the Morandi bridge of Genoa would have received adequate maintenance, I will be sincere, you are also of those fools who don't refute each other.