This is not about a book. This is not even a review. This is paradoxical philosophy.
Science has no problem. Science achieves. Mathematics has no problem. Mathematics verifies. But philosophy has a problem. Or what most of us would collectively agree, to be a problem. That problem is this - philosophy achives nothing. Philosophy verifies nothing. Philosophy does, simply for the act of doing, and is not result oriented.
In trying to define abstract terms such as faith, understanding and love, we attempt to transcend. Transcending is not possible, or in the least, very unlikely, because the un-transcended state is not really one of realisation of that fact. Indeed we might simply be fooling ourselves, but the nature of reality demands, that in order to feel, we must fool.
One wonders what others feel when they speak of pain, pride, red, and even nauseau. If it were for one moment possible to really understand another person.. but understanding is malleable, and understanding is simply interpretation. There are no absolutes. The previous statement is not absolute either. Paradoxes reign supreme.
But one must make an effort. To say that its not possible and hang it is achieving nothing at all. One speaks of achievement with pride. What is the quality that tends to associate the two synonymously. That quality would have its own name too, if it werent for the human tendency to stop defining terms at the surface of things. The tendency is justified. Getting caught in infinite definitions is what mathematics avoided with axioms, and humans avoided with belief systems. Be they rational, or not. They are justified. By their mere nature of imparting false understanding. At least you will see, be it a false sight.
If one applies this way of thinking, to this way of thinking, one will realise the nature of the problem. Measuring the system, changes the system. Like trying to see the floating dark spots on your eye lens.
You read these words, and apply your own transformations to them to process them into recognisable contexts, and recognisable symbols. Your transformations are yours alone, and are what makes what you get out of this, unique to your context.
This philosophy realises its own irrationality. This philosophy is sardonic about its own preachings. But it does not attempt to morally justify its own value system. Indeed, it may exist only for the writer, and be entirely correct in that context. But a universal philosophy is clearly bunk. Thus a philosphy which start with ’’you must..’’ is clearly incomplete, and is probably putting itself out on a limb, inviting to be misconstrued, and expecting similar value systems to the ones of the creator of that philosophy. I dont really know what you read into these lines. In short then, there are no misunderstandings. If we cannot define understanding, how can we define its polar opposite?
So we are alone. That much we know. Not alone, as a race. Alone as an individual. Each action is for our own fulfillment, whether it be recognised, or not, deemed suitable or not, judged or not, accepted or not. Realise that giving for the joy of giving is again a selfish act, for personal pleasure, be it a pleasure that is not normally looked upon as self gratifying. And every action is selfish, since we have just taken away the only claim to fame unconditional giving really had. So one might as well as stop giving selfishness a rough time, its the only thing one has.
So one must conclude writing philosophy is no form of communication, neither is it imparting a value system, neither is it of any purpose, since anything could be read into it depending on the context of the viewer. But it is still incorrect to state then, that one might as well as not write it, since, it is just as mindless, and purposeless, as everything else.