The problem with philosophy at large is that it is too average, too mediocre, too simplified. It is easy for it to slide into any ear. It combines and integrates very well with everything we have learned and the way we organized the world around us. We want our philosophy to be well behaved, adapts itself to a Petite bourgeoisie way of looking at life. Any view which is a bit extreme or does not fit into our world view is kicked out.
Our philosophy does not wish to break any powerful walls of thinking. It lives with what there is. Conforms to it. Does not rock the boat.
Conformed philosophy does not see its job to criticize the existing order and the kind of life that people live. It divides the territories of thought into categories, and the more departments the better.
It presents its philosophies as a set of private theories divided into departments. Presented a theory as one of many theories, they say that any theory could have its own legitimacy. But if there is any philosophy, any rebellious approach about the kind of life people live, this aspect is not being related at all.
All radical, extreme, challenging & rebellious philosophy is being diluted and under-emphasized, if not denied, in his writings. ‘Pushed to the corners’.
“The little prince” is a highly provocative, critical and nonconformist book, but mostly it is being treated as a lovely, cute story for children and grownups.
This aspect: radical philosophy could revitalize the rigid, conservative, old-fashioned, and one dimensional view of life.
Truth does not live in the petit bourgeoisie comfortable little, ordered, collective life, it lives in those who do not take life as it is being lived, it lives in those who see life from a radical, unconventional, rebellious, and disobedient view.
Only those who see life differently, who don’t adopt the way of thinking as the majority, but they have learned to think for themselves- don’t fall into the trap of frozen, rigid, flat, one dimensional way of looking at life.
Philosophy needs fresh air, broken walls of conventional thinking, and thinking out of the box.
Rationality, logic, and taking things on the level they have been said, with no metaphoric depth – is a dead, intellectual, and dry philosophy.
Philosophy which is not rebellious is a recycling of the old same way of understanding life.
Rebellion is the spirit of philosophy, if it is not being renewed each time again, it is an anemic spirit, and a dead philosophy.
Philosophy without rebellion being the center of gravity is like a soup with everything in it, except liquid…
Philosophy without breaking the convenient way of before is rigid philosophy.
(One of the few philosophical fields that deals in a rebellious, challenging philosophy were the stream of thought called Existentialism. And especially in existential anarchism. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth-century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche came to be seen as precursors of the movement.)