What is it to philosophize?

It is useful to start always with a truism. Herein, let’s start with agreeing that human
beings have concerns. Originally, the word “concern” means to refer to something with as
belongs to the speaker. This pen concerns me, for example, means that this pen belongs to me
in a certain matter. Now, we can start speaking of each human endeavor as a kind of concern;
that is, for example, physics as a science is a concern with nature, art with beauty, craft and
work with utility…etc. What, then, is the concern at hand when we speak of philosophy?
Philosophy is concerned with asking question, but not of any kind. Philosophy asks a certain
kind of questions that can be peculiarly categorized as: great and hard, yet small and simple.
Philosophy tries always to ask a question that is due to its simplicity might be rendered
unanswerable. Take, as an example, the following “philosophical question”: why is 2 bigger that
one? This is too evident, too simple, yet if you tried to say out loud the reason why you would
not probably be able to lay it bare. Philosophy is concerned with the unanswerable, with
silence.

Why silence? It is because a question is unanswerable only if when, in trying to find its
answer, one is confronted with complete silence. Why is it that 2 is bigger than 1? In trying to
answer this question, you might start saying that it is because on the number line, the numbers
that follow the zero are positive integers, which means that they will keep increasing. And since
2 comes after 1, it is an increased integer than that of 1. But, listen to your answer carefully.
What you told me here is only a description that does not answer the question of: what is it for
a number to increase? How do numbers increase? What is involved? And how can we discern
that the unit 2 is an actual increase? Here, for the first time one might be struck with silence.
When one is confronted with silence there are two options: either to dismiss the issue
altogether, or to feel an urge to penetrate this silence. Philosophy is the latter. Here, we can ask
an appropriate question: is trying to penetrate the silence necessary?

To be able to provide an answer to this, we need to know about the “encounter”. It is

when we confront something that compels the flow of our lives to change dramatically. Here,
we are at a loss of words. We cannot but know that we are experiencing a dread that must be
relaxed, or else. This is part and parcel of our lives as human. We are destined to experience an
encounter sooner or later. Yet, in encountering the encounter, what should we do? Should we
run away? Should we dismiss it? Should we act as if nothing has happened? Or should we stare
at it trying to make a sense out of it? These questions can be broken down into two: should we
“repress” the encounter? Or should we “address” the encounter? Philosophy attempts to do
the latter. So we can reformulate our question: should we address the encounters that we
experience, or should we dismiss them?

The response of philosophy is, again, that we must address these encounters. Why? The
answer to this is simply because it is in the nature of the encounter that we feel a shattering of
a reality in a manner that renders us unable to pursue living unless the pieces are glued back
together again. Yet, recalling both that the encounter is a shattering reality, and that it
confronts us with silence. How can we ever respond to the encounter? Before answering
whether philosophy is necessary or not, then, we need to ask how does it respond to its
questions.

Philosophy acknowledges a fact that might be not that self-evident; that is; there are
certain aspects of life that are the same and will always be the same; they cannot change unless
life itself changes. Yet, our interpretation to these aspects are in flux, and always changeable.
There is a background to our lives, yet this background is laden with infinite meanings that are
ready to burst out each time anew. Thus, philosophy is a hermeneutical practice; a practice by
which humans interpret their situation, or to be exact, their encounters. But to interpret
something means that one needs to take a step back in order to be able to address it. How to
take a step back from the encounter?! That is, in order for us to address the encounter, we
need to interpret it, which necessarily requires a step back, a reflection. However, the
encounter appears to be not giving as any space to do so. Two problems appear then: what is
this space? And granting that it exists, would the encounter be then explicable?

First, the space we talk about is what we call home. Philosophy needs a home. Human
beings need a home in order to do anything. Yet, in the face of the encounter, it is necessary
that a home exists for us to be able to take a step back – why? It is because if there is no home,
then to where should I retreat, to where should take this step back? If there is no home, we
would either standstill, or we would keep running away until further notice. Thus, home is a
necessary condition for philosophy.

What is a home then? A home is a dwelling space. What is to dwell then? To dwell is to
settle down, to inhabit, and to have an abode. Human being dwell. To dwell in not just to have a
house or four walls, it means to have a point of reference from which coordinates arise. It is the
space in which and from which we come to know the directions, boundaries and distances of
things. Without such a point of reference, total loss and real dangers either threaten or occur.
This point of reference that we need in order to dwell is what we call home. To dwell in a home
is what gives us our character, identity, and meaning. How so? It is by providing us with the safe
haven to which we would go back in facing the encounter. This trivial condition of humans, and
philosophy, is too simple, yet to great – how? It is because we hardly now feel at home with the
world, ourselves, or each other. Thus, before proceeding to answer is the encounter
answerable, we need first to ask: why are not we feeling at home?

Our modern life is characterized by what we might call, following Bauman, the liquidity
of modernity. We are living at time when the modern life has come to be liquid; they changed
from being hard to being liquid. What does this mean? What does modernity mean, in the first
place? It means the birth of a consciousness that perceives life in terms of order, chaos, and the
ability of the human being to turn the latter into the former. It strives for certainty. Yet, this
consciousness renders itself a perpetual struggle in between order and chaos, wherein the
latter is utterly dismissed. To be modern is to fear chaos and to try to put it to an end all the
time. Modernity, in Bauman, has two phases that are interlinked: solid and liquid. In the first
phase, life was machine with fixed coordinates, yet in the latter those coordinates have turned
into a liquid state where no boundaries exist anymore. This is due to the inner mechanism of
modernity itself. (Bauman: first chapter of MA/ diff. between liquid and modern).

We can tackle all of the conditions of modern life here, but remember we are trying to
understand the aspects that pertain directly to homeliness. Here, we need to attend to the
following aspects: space, time, boundaries, fear and work. To each assign a reading.
The main idea is as follows: we have lost the conditions that render us able to have co-
ordinates. These conditions are basically about boundaries and negativity. In homogenizing
those everything loses its meaning.

What are boundaries? How did we lose them? Boundaries were conceived of qua modern as a
division between order and chaos, in favor for the former. To lose boundaries means to fall
back into chaos. Chaos is seen as the main thing we run from because it makes us feel
uncertain. Uncertainty must be crushed. Here the fear of negativity has started, and it is
unfolding today reaching un-precedent degree. (Modernity and ambivalence)

1. Philosophy and the encounter: Zabarowski 1-4 / Bollnow 1-5 = 9 pages /scenes
2. Dwelling and its importance: Zabarowski 4-13 / Bollnow 119-126 / 142-146 = 20 pages
3. Reflecting on dwelling: Bollnow 147-179 = 32 pages + reflections
4. What is modernity: Bauman’s introduction to Modernity and Ambivalence / his intro to
liquid modernity
5. The first condition (a): Individuality 53-72
6. The first condition (b): Individuality 72- 90
7. The second condition: Space 90-110
8. The third condition: Time 110-129
9. The third condition (a): work 130-160
10. The third condition (b): work 160-130
11. One last recap of the conditions: Tiredness 16-20/30-34
12. Revisiting our question, i.e. can we have a home? – the consequences: Zabarowski 13-25.