philosophical cheerleading

"Obviously, it is the case that THIS is how the concept of love is used. And you may protest all you want, but that is just because you REFUSE to acknowledge it. Because, you know, some people really do not want to see it."

Some really know how philosophy is to be done. Maybe I am not bold enough for this, ahem, brutal & honest & penetrating Art of self-knowledge?

So, dear people, you know what is to be done: Persuasion, persuasion, persuasion!

(And philosophy = therapy and what I do now is no more than the conceptually descriptive and as X himself said...)

And if that does not help: next time you go to the self-deceived person who is seemingly unimpressed by your all-too-obvious philosophical point that is pure description: take thy whip.

Bring it home, bring it home, bring it home!

[Carve this picture in stone: Socrates equipped with a pair of pom poms.]

----------------

I really do think that philosophy should challenge oneself and one's blind spots. Sometimes, philosophical points are hard to grasp because you cling to a picture (of yourself, the world, other people and your relation to them). But what I react to here is a certain idea about what it is to say something in a philosophical discussion. I have a really difficult time understanding philosophy as "persuasion", that the main task of your interlocutor is to tear your petty hang-ups to pieces by pointing you towards the Truth. The risk inherent in all this is that you are so concerned about keeping philosophy honest that you become suspicious about everything the other says (why is it not the other way around?). If there is disagreement, somebody must certainly be steeped in deception (and that certain somebody happens to be you, not me.).
In short: you can't be whipped into a clear mind. The image of philosophy I have severe difficulties with seems to show very little consideration for exploration in philosophical discussion. You don't explore, or look around you, or try to take the other's words seriously, if you think that philosophy is about hammering home the truth, the one and only, that we all are capable of acknowledging, were we not to persist in our self-deception. I am concerned about a very rhetorical use (to which I, too, sometimes resort) of how "we" must think and what "we" must all agree with and what "we" all understand (if we were not so....). Why is this so difficult: "This is how I see it and I can't express it in any clearer way right now - what do you say?"
In my view, what philosophy, at best, can teach you is how to express yourself as clearly as you can and not talking with any other voice other than your own.