A philosophical essay i am writing

I started writing my first philosophical treatise yesterday night, after almost a decade of not occupying myself with purely philosophical works (i have a degree in Philosophy, but mostly write/think about literature).

Its topic (or at least that of the first chapter) is the relation between the notions of the external and the internal world.

Generally my starting point is that each person can be seen as an atom in the external world, but also that each Ego can be seen as an atom in the internal world. Thus there is a parallelism between the two.

Also there is the idea of space, which creates this characterization, and that idea too is argued to be both one that is found in the external, but also in the internal world: space is formed as a notion in part from the person's reaction to his eyesight and ability to move in a three dimensional space. Thus it is an anthropomorphic notion. But at the same time space is seemingly something that belongs to the external world, since its understanding makes the phenomenon of existing in an external world possible.

Furthermore there is the idea of speech, which is argued to be another parallel of the idea of moving in space, this time moving in thoughtful interaction with others. Speech gives us the ability to come into contact with other people in the mental plane, like having a physical body and the ability to move gives us the capacity to interact with others in the physical plane. Also speech is to be seen as a phenomenon which influenced the further development of Logos (thinking) while the appearance of Logos predates speech in human history and development.

Anyway, these are some of the points of the first chapter. I am currently at the third part of it (wrote almost 8 pages last night). I think that i would like to expand the treatise to at least 1000 pages, which is roughly how much i write in my diary in a full year, but this can be written a lot faster if i am consistent in creating it.

I would be very interested in reading your impressions of this general presentation of my study. You can comment on its topic, its specific characterization in this thread, or anything else that relates to it. I hope this can expand into a meaningful discussion, and, as Heidegger once wrote: "by discussing it becomes obvious what the original idea was about" :)

Anyone? :)

I don't think you've said anything specific enough to really discuss just yet. The brief idea you've put forward is neither controversial nor unconventional.

What part did you want to discuss?

Well something which aims to be true has neither to aspire to be controversial nor unconventional ;)

Any part of the OP can be discussed. For example how about the tripartite nature of Space?

1)The idea of space is the essence of the significance of the term "space" which is formed inside one's mental world.

2) The experience of space is the natural and (usually) direct realization of space through one's physical ability to move, granted by his body.

3) Space itself, as a thing by itself, is something at the same time different from the idea of space, but also different due to its position, being outside of the thinker/observer of it. It has no form, since it assumes forms dependent on the observer.

Man is a part of space, space invades him. Look at the Catholic mass, identity in the Host is completely buggered by atomic theory. To say that man is not substantial is not saying very much but it is the truth. Man is mortal, the atoms of his soul scatter upon death. (Lucretius is worth a look in this respect.) Life is a miracle, the only one that we have. It can be explained but not fully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

I think that i would like to expand the treatise to at least 1000 pages,

---

A 1000 pages - that's the recipe for philosophical nausea :sick: Unless it's utter genius no-one is ever going to read it. Nietzsche had the best motto for philosophers: It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what other men say in whole books, what other men do not say in whole books. :cornut:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panglossian

A 1000 pages - that's the recipe for philosophical nausea :sick: Unless it's utter genius no-one is ever going to read it. Nietzsche had the best motto for philosophers: It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what other men say in whole books, what other men do not say in whole books. :cornut:

---

You are correct, i do not really expect it to be read, and Nietzsche himself, despite this motto, was known to claim that "i am not being read, i will not be read" as well ;)

But 1000 pages is not much for such a subject. Surely others have accomplished such a thing, and i do have a lot to write about since this issue is vast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

You are correct, i do not really expect it to be read, and Nietzsche himself, despite this motto, was known to claim that "i am not being read, i will not be read" as well ;)

But 1000 pages is not much for such a subject. Surely others have accomplished such a thing, and i do have a lot to write about since this issue is vast.

---

You're right. If you can, you should. Maybe I'm envious :nod:. All I can muster philosophically is a handful of aphorisms here and there.

Well i studied it, not that i got that far, but i have the habit of analyzing and synthesizing thoughts :)

Also this work would help me form a more stable view of these issues myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

Well i studied it, not that i got that far, but i have the habit of analyzing and synthesizing thoughts :)

Also this work would help me form a more stable view of these issues myself.

---

How can anything be stable over 1000 pages?

Exactly ;) "Everything flows", so the last pages will have been the arrival at a new theory, only buried in the beginning under the rabble of not yet realized deeper urges to arrive at such an end :)

And yes, it would be 1000 pages styled after the last sentence, so generally unreadable by others i am afraid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

Exactly ;) "Everything flows", so the last pages will have been the arrival at a new theory, only buried in the beginning under the rabble of not yet realized deeper urges to arrive at such an end :)

And yes, it would be 1000 pages styled after the last sentence, so generally unreadable by others i am afraid...

---

Then why not start with the last sentence and end there?

For the same reason that maths did not start with current maths. Ancient maths were useful too as a foundation, and usually are even more established than anything current, however breakthroughs in the present find their way into the field and are being taught in schools alongside ancient knowledge.

In other words: i would start with the last sentence, if it was not needed for me to unlock it by writing all that is before it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

For the same reason that maths did not start with current maths. Ancient maths were useful too as a foundation, and usually are even more established than anything current, however breakthroughs in the present find their way into the field and are being taught in schools alongside ancient knowledge.

In other words: i would start with the last sentence, if it was not needed for me to unlock it by writing all that is before it. ;)

---

Once you have unlocked it, why not start with it like Descartes?

Is not the journey to Ithaca significant by itself though? Surely arriving there is the end, but the actual journey has its own significance, and, after all, it was the journey which was the subject of the epic, not Odysseus' life when he finally dealt with the situation in his kingdom. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

Is not the journey to Ithaca significant by itself though? Surely arriving there is the end, but the actual journey has its own significance, and, after all, it was the journey which was the subject of the epic, not Odysseus' life when he finally dealt with the situation in his kingdom. :)

---

O forlorn Odysseus! Wasn't he a floundering fool?

Correct me if I am wrong, according to you Idea of Space, Idea of Speech, Idea of moving in space are distinct from space, speech, and the act of moving themselves...all of which are independent of us? Second what do u mean by speech influences logos, are u talking about something similar to Orwell's 1984, where the words themselves control your thought? Are you aiming for some sort of Platonic Dualism between the internal and external reality? I mean even if we establish a one to one correspondence between internal and external world, what then? I guess u have to give us some more before we can contribute :-D ,otherwise u will get more questions than answers

Hi Muazjalil :)

Yes in my view there is a distinction between the idea and the object itself. For example the object of space first of all exists through the senses and our ability to move. I am not certain which of the two made it first form. But this is the sensory perception of space.
Then you have space itself, which does not exist as is seen for it assumes the form the sight and animating mechanisms of the observer of it grants it.
And, finally, you have the idea itself of space, which is surely distinct both from space as a thing by itself, and space as a sensory perception, for the idea is an object in the mental world of the person having this ideation. The idea of space seems to be even more complicated as an issue, since it does not seem obvious to what it breaks up to. Is it a reflection of the sensory perception of space? Is it something, instead, that forms primarily as a meaning of "distance" we have and which appears to be innate? I think ti is all of that, and more.

As for Logos and Speech, Logos in greek means at the same time "logic" and "(verbal) speech". I think that there is some reason why this is so. The first humans did not have speech (how could they? They had to develop something in agreement to each other, and therefore there was a time before developing speech, a time of getting together in groups and socializing without being able to communicate in intricate ways). So it follows, in my view, that there existed a time during which humans had social relations with groups, but not an agreed upon system of speech. This by itself seems to be very significant for where else would one look for the crucial distinction in the notions of the external and internal world if not in that shadowy prehistoric period where the external world appeared to be (perhaps for the first time) an at least as significant world as the internal one, and also the internal one was reigning supreme still?

I recall one of my professors in Philosophy who told us that we were wrong if we came to study it so as to find answers, for it endlessly creates more questions. This is true, and a good thing. Although it shows just how vast our mental world is, and how little the ability to express it all, all that is one :)

Here is an aphorism i developed recently. You have my full permission to reproduce it in your work if you feel fit.
'There is no time,there is only moving space'.
By this i mean that time in itself is not a 'thing' but an 'idea' that we produce from the conflagration and abstraction of two seperate phenomenon.
The human 'soul' is a personality,which physically is a 'doer' and this doer is a moving force which takes up space,but is also a vacum/void. However the void/vacum is defined by it boundary which is its 'external appearance',thus all humans are clothed in a body. Even shakespeares ghosts have a form! Hope you can put this mind fart to some use.
ps; dont write 1000 pages,the best treatises are from 20 to 100 pages. Above 150 and we know you are waffling or showing off!!!

Hm, although i would agree that time was a non-issue for prehistoric people, at the same time it seems that they too had the idea of flowing space, as you put it. Not sure if it was primarily of flowing space, or of distance, which in its turn can be attributed to a different and sensory perception, that of the work one needs to do so as to get from one point to the next, both in physical points, and metaphorical ones.

For the time being the essay is in hypnosis, as we say here ;) And if i decide to start it again then i can assure you it would need at least 1000 pages.
Of course i agree that a 1000-pages work is hard to read. But i do not plan to have it published now. Maybe if i achieve some kind of fame due to my literary work it can be published after my death, or in the late years of my life (i am 32 now).
For the time being i would rather use parts of it in my short stories :)

I much prefer short stories nowadays. I Look forward to your shorties then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theunderground

... By this i mean that time in itself is not a 'thing' but an 'idea' that we produce from the conflagration and abstraction of two seperate phenomenon....

---

Except that we age. Time is real enough; it's only human measurement of it that is abstract and arbitrary.

The aging may be our decrease in the ability to regenerate our physical body.Of course the passage of space is always forward and real .

:bump: I bought Steven Mithen's "The Prehistory of the mind" a couple of days ago. Seems to be quite relevant to much of my essay, and it is a new book, translated in 2010.

Anyone read it or parts of it?