On Philosophy
   The problem with philosophy, as I see it (and that is why I would be reluctant to
pursue the subject at any great length), is not the divergence of different viewpoints
among different philosophers, but the apparent superficiality of the subject matter
and, at the same time, the authority exerted by the proponents of particular views
upon culture and society.

   As I observe in today’s culture, the names of philosophers are becoming as fashionable
as the tastes in cars, shoes, clothes, etc. One can refer to a man’s character by his preference for a particular philosopher: one can often hear that some person is labeled as Kantian, Hegelian, Freudian, Marxist, Jungian, Nietzschean, etc., etc. These labels are superficially assigned to people and supposedly reflect one’s character. The most classic distinction is
the division of philosophers into Platonic and Aristotelian camps of philosophical thought.

   The point, of course, that I’m trying to make is that philosophy, which for the ancient
Greeks meant the "pursuit of wisdom," has now turned into a sophisticated circus show,
where the most colorful and eloquent presenter of his (or her) case gains the most influence.
In addition to Nietzsche’s observation that philosophers play the role of lawyers, making
a case for their clients, philosophy can be used to advance anything else for that matter.
As we can see from history, Hitler made use of Nietzsche’s metaphor of the "blond beast"
to advance his ideas of the Aryan race and extermination of other races.

   In the same way that Christianity was turned into a dogma, which was used to suppress
the masses, philosophy is often used to the same end, as philosophical ideas are forced
down our throats by the social and political systems in the same way that the passages from the Bible are forced upon us by the clergy. As Marx noted: "Religion is the opium of the people." This is to be understood that religion, while providing some relief to the burdens
of living (in the form of hope for an afterlife), at the same time enslaves the people to accept living in miserable conditions1. But, at the same time, Marxism has become "the opium of the intellectuals," and Kant’s motto that "the death of dogma is the birth of morality" falls apart
in the face of Kant’s dogmatic postulation of the categories.

   It appears that while philosophers argue among themselves over superficial problems created by language, humanity carries on with its daily activities of lust, greed, domination, murder, exploitation, oppression, etc. Philosophy that fails to penetrate the real roots of humanity is a supericial philosophy. As an example I would like to note a friend of mine
who used to throw a lot of philosophical ideas at me, while, at the same time, declaring that
"to know woman, you must smell her pussy!" Even after I confronted him, he still maintained his position that a woman’s essence is in her genitals.

   All "humor" aside (if one can see humor in it), we have serious problems when philosophy becomes divorced from one’s total way of life. Nietzsche, for example, was hardly "the truly exuberant, alive and world-affirming" overman that he envisioned in his philosophy. And Sartre’s contemplation of "being and nothingness" is just another smokescreen (he loved to smoke) to justify his decadent intellectual lifestyle with several mistresses. And from what I know of Schopenhauer is that he was a vain and snobbish man, who thought himself above others intellectually and had contempt for women and common people.

   However, I'm not merely making an ad hominem argument against the viewpoints advanced by Western philosophers; what I really want to suggest is that philosophy that cannot be translated into life is a waste of time, and one could read volumes of philosophical works and get "nothing" out of it in terms of helping humanity. Indeed, when a particular philosophy is simply a matter of preference, then we are engaged in an act of mere "tongue wagging," which has little significance for humanity. No wonder that nihilism enjoys so much popularity these days: if neither philosophy, nor religion can be accepted as sources of values, human beings are forced to create their own (as Nietzsche had suggested).

   If we accept the premise that philosophy has been engaged in the superficial arguments on
the nature of reality, is there any way that philosophy can be made a part of life without giving rise to another ideology? How can we avoid more "-isms," more name calling, etc., so as to arrive at some universal truth behind human values without falling into a position of complete relativism and arbitrariness of all views?

   This is a serious question. And I would like to suggest that to present another "philosophy" to answer this question would be a serious mistake. For one thing, I wouldn’t want anyone to use my last name to sell anything from toilet paper to mass murder, for another, I don’t seriously think that such a philosophy can or should exist. I like to write poetry and I think I’ll stick to that.

   Let the "philosophers" engage in their superficial arguments. Or as the wise men of China might have said long ago:

Cockcrow penetrating to heaven
Perseverance brings misfortune.2


   That is to say: a cock may crow and go on crowing but it can never fly to heaven. In the same way philosophers just "crow" without arriving at any truth.

_____
1This what Nietzsche means by "slave morality."

2from The I Ching or the Book of Changes. The Richard Wilhelm translation from
  Chinese into German. Rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes. Bollingen Series XIX.
  Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977.
 

                                                                                            June, 1988
                                                                                        --Alexander Shaumyan