Gradually it has become clear to me
what every great philosophy so far has been:
namely, the personal confession of its author
and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir.
Philosophers, perhaps much more than others, would deny any such relationship, similarity or even disparity, between their thoughts or body of work with their very own lives. They warn us, sometimes vehemently, that reading their biography into their philosophy, or interpreting their work as either a reflection or response to the different experiences they have accumulated in their lives, would not only lead us into dead-ends, but also be rather too narrow-minded of us--as if every thing in fiction must correspond to something in fact, as if every story out there must mirror exactly the fabric of an author's life.
We understand that also, naturally. We are no longer children. Not only should we give thinkers and authors above all enough credit by not thinking too naively that, aware or not, they do not find out for themselves that their works are merely projections or repressions of their wishes or troubles, as if we see more than what they do, as what has been held by most; artists, perhaps more than others, are more conscious than we think at the point of creation. Nothing escapes their gaze, and nothing discoverable can hide from the power of their anticipation, much more their own selves and its relation to the work of art. In fact, the opposite can be said that they deliberately, at times to the point of madness, try to hide themselves in their work, endlessly masking themselves or backgrounding themselves (as Caravaggio does in some of his earlier canvases, where he only partially shows his face as among a crowd); or much more, they rid the work of any possible trace that may implicate them, sanitizing their work as one does before fleeing the scene of one's crime, of any possible resemblance or inversion of it with the writer's life that may come across the sharp lenses of a persistent reader. It is in such a case, however, that the thinker errs.
|Caravaggio. The Martyrdom of St. Matthew. 1599-1600.|
Caravaggio is farthest from the scene, at the back.
Ironically, it is because of that very consciousness, of having to always rid the work of any possible evidence that may lead back to him, even if he is truly innocent at the first, that turns him into the guilty one. In erasing a trace, you leave another one, or usually more, and in the end you make a mess of it, your pristine hands now stained by blood. Or again: beware of philosophers who repeatedly tell us that their philosophy and biography have nothing to do with each other--they are the guilty ones. The truly innocent keep their silence about their work and lives, as does the scientist or the waiter or the mailman.
When I speak, initially and for the most part, what I speak about concerns me essentially, or at the very least tangentially. When I talk about the weather or "current events," that is, when I say something only for the sake of saying something (and not because something calls me to say something about it), for "small talk"--speaking with having nothing to say isn't really saying anything at all, obviously. This idle talk, though always nervous, is easy enough: we only say what everyone else is saying, what is obvious to one and all, what is, in a word, unessential; we do this all the time. But it is when essential matters are at stake when we begin to choose our words, perhaps even give some thought into what we say; in matters of import, not necessarily grave, we do begin to reveal our mind, and that means revealing a life. There is something selfish about our words not only in that they come from our mouths, but because they refer to us, to our position, to--shall I say it?--our own very hearts. What does not touch me in my being, what is only a childish play of words, marked either by sophistry or hubris; or speeches or lectures about big words such as "justice" or "God" or "mankind," which, while benevolent and perhaps even inspiring, are not rooted in a life, in one's very flesh--words and through them, thoughts, that bear no weight for me precisely and literally do not matter to me. I can speak them, or as one said, I can "speechify," I can do this and you will understand me, but you shall always miss me--who I am--thus you will not know me. It is the same with all essential matters.
And when we enter that horizon which we still (have to) think is most provocative to thought, when we speak of the work of the word and the riches of ideas, we still have to say the same: that what is said here in silence or in thunder must be borne from the very lives of men, from their deepest, truest selves. To write, naturally, is never easy for those who do not experience anything within themselves. Easy to speak or to "tweet" about this and that new, cool thing I saw, something I merely noticed or overheard, something just uploaded or posted on a blog, something I suddenly feel. But these words have no amplification even if they still serve the duty of signification, linking one link to another link which leads you to only another link. Such words do not reverberate because they do not rise out from the depths. It is in the depths where a man's life can be found.
What would a thinker be without tumult in his soul? Without the burden of a cross or the weight of sheer existence? Or without those mad passions that possess him to no end, in running away from which one cannot but speak, or yes, shout. I will have no grave reason to think or write if every day were sunny and I have no troubles. There is something sickening in writing about happiness: it will always be the same story, the same ending, the same emotion. Oh but tragedy! One can die a million different ways. One can be punished in many more. Hence the infinite number of tears, while all laughters sound the same. One tear for every thought, every page; these tears compose the most profound stories we tell.
Around me I see that those who have chosen to live the life of the mind--they are in pain. Yes, they do not show it; but that does not matter. I see it, I hear it, those senseless cries or hollers or silent screams, may they have been unleashed in the past, or are still in schedule for a very near future. Every thinker is due for at least a breakdown or two in the course of his or her life.
A thinker is also never a healthy man. (They are most probably not wealthy as well). When you use you mind non-stop, you worry a lot. Come to think it, thinking may be nothing but worrying--worrying if I understood it right, if I am correct, if I covered everything as much as possible. And worrying is never a pleasurable activity.
. . .
On Kierkegaard: Well, it's fairly obvious. His writings, it has often been said--though too easily--, can be read as one long apologia to Regine, as to why he did not marry her whom he loved and who loved him so much.
" . . . when a thinker's work, or pieces and traces of his work, are available, the 'life' of a philosopher is unimportant for the public. We never get to know what is essential in a philosophical life through biographical descriptions anyhow." -- Martin Heidegger
"I would like to tell you how much I feel stripped away by the very idea of a biography. For one who thinks that the true self for us all is a non-worldly self, foreign to every empirical or objective determination, the attempt to approach him through these kinds of reference points seems to be problematic. The history of a man, the circumstances which surround him, are they anything other than a sort of mask, more or less flattering, that he and others agree to put on his face--he who, at bottom, has no face?" -- Michel Henry
"For a profitable study of the history of philosophy there is also need for a certain "sympathy," almost the psychological approach. It is desirable that the historian know something of the philosopher as a man (this is not possible in the case of all philosophers, of course), since this will help him to feel his way into the system in question, to view it, as it were, from inside, and to grasp its peculiar flavour and characteristics. We have to endeavor to place ourselves into the place of the philosopher, to try to see his thoughts from within." --Copleston, S.J.,
. . .