(Yes, and I forgot to add that it was only after half an hour, after bathing in a forest stream, that Wilk realized he didn't know Chinese and realized that during his several decades of working in a Russian band, he had only learned the song "Czornye oczy" and the phrase "Nu zajec, pagadi!". Poor guy – he has no linguistic talent, let's hope he can cope! I'm keeping my fingers crossed for him! Maybe we'll finally see him in a Jackie Chan movie.)
"You did very well," Auntie sipped the last sip of tea from her cup. "Charles Chaplin wisely observed that life seen up close is a drama, and from a distance, a comedy...
" "Exactly, Auntie, and that's why I'm asking: what is the current significance of the philosophy of dialogue!?" Auntie poured herself another cup of tea, stirred it with a spoon, and looked at the boy with a curious look. She stayed like that for a moment, and finally her gaze drifted to Zeno, then to Heraclitus. Filip remained silent throughout. He knew his aunt was gathering her thoughts. Even the monkey and the parrot fell silent, for until then they had been chasing each other like little children. The entire house fell silent. The calm, steady ticking of the wall clock penetrated the emptiness. Tick – tick – tick. The next sound that assaulted the boy's hearing was the singing of sparrows in the yard; they seemed to have just returned from the fields. It was harvest time, so they often visited this place. His aunt rose from the armchair, went to the aquarium, and poured in some fish food.
"Interesting question, I've never thought about it," she almost whispered, but Filip heard it perfectly. "Honestly, the first thing that comes to mind is that we should first consider what tools we should use. Dialogue… it's so obvious, so bright, it hurts the eyes! But with such brilliance that instead of adjusting to the light, we look away! Sigh… to understand the essence of the phenomenon, we should summarize the conditions under which it occurs.
" "The first thing that comes to mind is our conversation," Filip chimed in.
"Okay, but you see, Philo, the philosophy of dialogue is a bit more than that!" My aunt walked over to the enormous bookshelf that covered the entire wall. She began to trace the titles with her finger. "Oh, for example, here, I have Plato's Dialogues."
"Well, that's probably the point, isn't it?
" "No, that's the point, that's not the point," she smiled to herself. Statements like "butterfly" amused her greatly. "It's not about the content the dialogue conveys, but, in my opinion, what happens while the content is being conveyed. The philosophy of dialogue, it seems to me, is about evoking some reactions, observing them in the subject we're addressing... Oh, very good! That's what I meant!" Auntie walked away empty-handed from the bookshelf and returned to her armchair. She sipped her tea and smiled at Filip. He, confused, just snickered and bit his right index finger. "You don't understand, that's the point. Look, you asked me a question, I answered something, and you still say 'nothing'"—she emphasized the word, waving her fingers in the air as if to enclose the word in quotation marks—"you don't know!"
"Let's just say something's starting to dawn on me...
" "That's the point! You're starting to discover what you know! Because philosophy in dialogue is so obvious, it's almost immanent!" Unfortunately, I'm not as capable of explaining this eloquently as Socrates, but let's try to start with what we know. Maybe we can.
"Okay.
" "Okay, okay, yes... Let's start brainstorming! Well, then! Dialogue arose at a time when people needed to communicate with each other. Dialogue is meant to evoke some kind of reaction. Dialogue is one of some other ways of knowing, epistemology..." His aunt fell into thought. Filip observed her behavior. Finally, he blurted out,
"Well, I guess that's the point, you know? It's about how well I understand that the philosophy of dialogue is, in some sense, a tool for understanding the entirety of what surrounds us."
"Existence," my aunt said. "Yes, well, this, this, this," she pointed out with her index finger. She smiled. "We're reasoning well. So we're sort of the center of cognition, aren't we? Our "self" is an antenna that receives all the information, and various integrated circuits within us organize the received waves there! Very interesting! Now, Filip, I suggest we address what our "self" is. I must admit, it's difficult; many philosophers have already received doctorates for this reason..." This time Filip smiled. He knew my aunt's approach to obtaining documents confirming "knowledge." According to her, these are fuses designed to explode the moment the person trying to deny the knowledge of the holder of the "certificate" begins to be "right." It's an escape from the problem, a settling into one's own nest, an attempt at paradoxical isolation. A kind of grounding on one level, locking oneself in the bedroom and hiding under the covers. She herself holds thousands of certificates in various fields of study, but she never boasted about them. She never wanted them; they were simply thrust upon her. She only wanted to learn something new and see what else there was to discover!
"Well, what's there to discover, Auntie? 'I' is 'I', and that's it!
" "And I disagree with you there, Filo! Have you read Gombrowicz's 'Ferdydurke' or Nałkowska's 'The Border,' eh?
" "Not necessarily... I couldn't handle those borders at all; it's like a soap opera.
" "Wrong! You should! But as for soap operas, I agree, you're right; they're literature for people a little older and less discerning than us." "Auntie always emphasized that she was close in age to Filip." "But you see, Gombrowicz and Nałkowska emphasize that our 'self' is shaped by society. It's shaped by every individual who observes and judges us. The same thing happens in reverse. We observe and judge our observer." Let me quote a sentence from "The Frontier": "We are what others think of us, not what we think of ourselves." And then: "One is what one is." So you see, it's a bit more complicated. Listen, we've gotten a little lost. The topic has developed too quickly; we have to stick to the specifics! Something I remembered from my student days, listen:
1. Dialogue is a way of getting to know another person—that's what Hegel used to say.
2. Dialogue is a way of interpreting another person. Dialogue is an attempt to grapple with a problem, to propose a solution to it—that's how Klages, Lerscha, and Kretschmer interpreted it.
3. Dialogue is an attempt to overcome the metaphysics of subjectivity—the thought of Heidegger and Derrida.
4. Dialogue is an attempt to get to know another person in order to get to know oneself—this idea gripped philosophers around the 1980s, for example, Panikkar. But in my opinion, this was already recognized in literature earlier.
So you see, we've jumped ahead a bit too quickly, because we started with point four. Okay, we should also consider reason, or, philosophically speaking, logos. After all, it's the reason that interprets the phenomenon. From the works of Schaeffler, the man commonly called the father of dialogue philosophy, we can read that " philosophical reason is always individual and means no more than I think ." Dialogue is, in a sense, connected with God, so I'll continue by quoting Schaeffler: "a religious word is always a nominal invocation." So, to summarize: the philosophy of reason is not equal to the religious word. Man, as the listener of the religious word, is the main subject of every Christian-theological anthropology. And Cohen says that reason reveals the eternal laws of the subjective world. Its tool is logic; reason exists; it realizes itself. We can also recall Rosenzweig, who said that the opposition between "reason and word" is most evident where philosophy as knowledge, reason, theology, and as the grammar of words meet. The point is that if you try to communicate with someone else, you can use various statements that logically don't fit the grammar, for example, "there is no one." Grammatically, you know what you're talking about; logically, it follows that this person "is." At least that's how I understand it. Theology is a special variety of logos, a divine variety: theology, divine reason. Reason controls the subjective ego.
"Frankly, I don't understand much—lots of names, some concepts..." Filip gave up. "Besides, why are we doing this? We were supposed to be dealing with the current meaning of the philosophy of dialogue!
" "Don't be so nervous!" My aunt smiled. "First, we need to gather the elements and tools we'll use! You don't start any house by putting flowers on the piano." Let's say we've gathered screws, hammers, and other tools, and for now we're just guessing what we can do with them. Okay? I'll probably repeat what you just heard more than once. I had to mention Logos because he's the architect of our building. We need to know who we're dealing with. Okay?
"Okay. Now that everything becomes clearer to me..."
"What's the most important thing you should take away from my momentary monologue? It's that the philosophy of reason is not equal to the religious word. In my opinion, and Panikkar's, religion is based on faith and intercultural dialogue—I forgot to add—and logos is based on logic. Of course, you'll find plenty of examples from other philosophers who might understand these concepts differently. Someone might say no, that logic is based on logos. In any case, let's not argue about that; this isn't the time or place for it. Besides, such an argument always ends in an attempt to pull oneself up by the shirt. Everyone stands their ground and has the right to do so. That's not important. I believe logos must be grounded and clear; it's subjective. Another interesting fact you might remember is that the philosophy of dialogue has been called the new paradigm. The old paradigm is philosophy based on understanding the world solely through one's own observations." An example is ancient philosophy, for example, represented by Heraclitus, Thales, Anaximander, and so on. They didn't consult the results of their observations with anyone, they simply announced them immediately. They didn't wait for criticism first. That's all for now; we'll continue the thread of the new paradigm later, because it's primarily the subject of your question.
- Good.
- So far, is it clear?
- Sure.
(I hope you understand, Reader, that you understand too. We're so much better off than Philip that we can always go back to the words his aunt and he spoke. So feel free to break away from reality for a moment and "go back in time." A silly saying, because time doesn't exist, but that's another story... Remember, you have a pencil and you can take notes. My aunt tries to explain everything clearly, but just in case, you can try to understand it yourself with your subjective ego.)
- Fine. Why aren't you drinking tea? It'll get cold for you." Filip completely forgot about the tea and peanuts. He quickly drank the contents of his cup and asked his aunt to continue. "The first person, at least according to most eminent philosophers, such as Hegel and Schelling, to truly engage with the concept of the 'I' was Immanuel Kant. This concept is very important in the philosophy of dialogue. That's why I think we should focus on it in particular. I'll explain in a moment..." At that moment, a loud "whoop" sounded on the stairs. It was Uncle Immanuel, running down the stairs from his study.
"Eureka, Eureka!" he shouted with all his might. He burst into the room and placed a book on the table next to the peanuts. He looked as if he'd just stepped out of his portrait. The same tailcoat and monocle. He differed in one detail—the top hat. "Eureka, where have you gone?" A low, bass-voiced bark echoed from the kitchen. A huge St. Bernard dog lumbered in. He sat down in front of his master and gazed languidly into his face. "We're going for a walk," the master announced solemnly, and waddled toward the exit.
"Wait!" His aunt stopped him. "Where are you going again, and what is this?" She pointed to the book on the table.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz