Metaphor and the Ineffable

As Arendt says, metaphor is the bridge between thought and the world of appearances, and those metaphors that we use do take from one of our five bodily senses to create themselves. But Arendt also makes the point that if we were to try and think about the ineffable, we find ourselves at a loss as to how to go about doing so. Mainly because of the fact that, because the ineffable is not rooted in the world of appearances, we have no metaphors with which to consider it. As such, all we really have is a "feeling" of it, an occasional burst of inspiration that leaves us as soon as we attempt to pin it down. Because our language, the words we use to actualize thought and make it concrete in our minds, does not have words with which to make the ineffable realized in or connected to the world of appearances, such thoughts are unable to be considered or spoken aloud. Based on such evidence, it could be entirely possible to proclaim the ineffable does not exist at all. And yet, we do still have that sense from time to time, those moments of inspiration or those feelings of sudden understanding, that do hint that the ineffable is out there. In my personal experience, such things usually are accompanied by that sensation you get when you have a word on the tip of your tongue, and just can't remember what it is. You know it's there, but it just refuses to be said or even understood sometimes. So I suppose the only consideration then is to figure out how to quantify it, either without using language, or by inventing new language to do so.

Desperate Philosophers

An interesting point that Arendt made in chapter 10 was that "the greater [certain philosophers] loom in our tradition of philosophy, the more they were inclined to find ways and means of reinterpreting these inherent traits" (1. withdrawal from the world of appearances 2. self-destructive tendency 3. knowledge of thinking only as long as thinking lasts) (88). Even more curious is that Arendt qualifies this by stating that philosophers are trying to reinterpret these facts, not for the masses, but for themselves. They appear to be unwilling to accept the fact that their chosen profession could, in fact, be useless. They will  stick to their subject without acknowledging that it could lead to nothing. Perhaps this is the reason that Plato feared people's derisive laughter as a danger and believed that the masses would rise up against the philosophers if they saw an opportunity.

Intramural Warfare

On pages 87-88, Arendt discusses the necessary withdrawal the thinking ego must take from the common world of appearances to contemplate something deeper. She says that the world of appearances can distract the mind and can conceal the mind from viewing an invisible Being that reveals itself only to the mind. She also goes onto say that our minds have a natural aversion to this way of thinking as if we might discover something that is distasteful to us, which goes back to her theory of the banality of evil. Overall, withdrawal from the common sense world of appearances, self-destructive tendency, and awareness of the mind’s activity is all part of the intramural warfare between common sense and thought.

Out of Order Thinking

In understanding what it means to "think", Arendt uses Heidegger's philosophical understanding of what it means to think. Arendt believes thinking exemplifies itself as a stop and think sort of action. More specifically Arendt (78) quotes Heidegger that thinking on any level or any such reflection demands and “out of order” thought process. In other words, it is wrong to believe that an established hierarchal order exists among the activities or thought processes of the mind. Ultimately the thought processes that occur in the human mind are more directed towards thought-objects than to sense-objects. Thought-objects require desensitization from our body so the mind can enter into a place where thinking can occur.

Existentialism

I remember Emily asking "what is existentialism?" I told her that I absolutely loved the literature that came with existentialism. The web definition says "A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will". I was extremely surprised when in my Education class I was classified as an existentialist teacher. In this description it says "a highly subjective philosophy that stressed the importance of the individual  and emotional commitment to living authentically. It emphasizes individual choice over the importance of rational theories, history, and social institutions." I think it's awesome that philosophy and education are tied so closely together. As a teacher, you have to know what you believe in and how you want your students to learn. 

Discovering Who We Are

Something that struck me in our reading this week was chapter 10 page 53 (for hard copy) when Arendt says "If we take our perspective from the world of appearances, the common world in which we appeared by birth and from which we shall disappear by death, then the wish to know our common habitat and amass all kinds of knowledge about it is natural." I think this really falls into the science as much as it does the knowledge. We are always searching for the truth. We're trying to find the depths of the world that are infinite. Everyday, we learn something new about ourselves, about the world around us. Most of us yearn for knowledge. A reason we're in college, to better our lives and know about our surroundings. We encounter new people, new lifestyles everyday. What is life if we're not gaining knowledge? What is knowledge without the science behind it?

Illogical Philosophy

Something that struck me while ready chapter 10 was the affinity Arendt described between philosophers and death, which they believed would "liberate the mind from bodily pain and pleasure, both of which prevent our mental organs from pursuing their activity" (81). The illogical part is the assumption on the part of the "professional thinkers" is that they do not seem to have thought about the fact that no one knows what succeeds death. Their blind hope seems to be that they will be free of bodily concerns, yet still free to think abstractly about such things as they please. To leave something like that unaddressed seems out of character for people who like to ask questions. Perhaps there is a bodily form in the afterlife. Perhaps there is no afterlife. Perhaps thought is restricted in the afterlife. It is impossible to say, but it is very odd for philosophers to pin their hopes on something they can't know about until they die.