I am not much of a (why much of a, should say I am NOT) a philosopher. But I understand that all of us are philosophers of sorts, because we have our own little philosophies that guide what we do and don’t do.
Philosophy for daily life? Some of my friends say that the two exist on two separate planes and don’t meet.
That is one hiatus.
Another is here: imagine there are two friends. One is an existentialist. Stated simply, an existentialist’s reality is INSIDE him/her and all existential issues are to be dealt with in a passionate and sincere manner. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard have amazingly trapped this timeless, origin-less belief into their writing.
Now imagine that this passionate and sincere existentialist comes into connect with a rationalist. A rationalist has the reality “out there” and he/she traps it with the tools of reason and deductive thought, over which several others would agree.
When a rationalist and an existentialist interact, they are like the lines that appear to be running in a direction towards each other, the feeling of freshness in each other’s approach and something very interesting. Deeper down, they are on two different planes.
Both have world views, both have logic, both are realists. But … there is such a wide gulf!
Say the existentialist wants to see the world with the eyes of the rationalist friend. Chances are good that he/she will think of doing something together. Chances are good that the rationalist will think of exchanging thoughts over mobile text messages.The existentialist has conversations, not messages, and even if he/she drafted some, they would not fit the mobile text format.
So, let’s say, the existentialist proposes to the rationalist that next time when the rationalist goes to the kitchen for cooking, he/she will tell the existentialist the recipe. Both would cook the same thing, using same recipe, and the feeling that they are doing the same thing at the same time would be an interesting experience.
What is a “Vicarious Togetherness” to an existentialist, is an “Indirect Conjoint” to the rationalist. Using the daily parlance, if they talk, the rationalist will find the existentialist verbose and over-complicated, and seeing too much where little exists.
Conversely, the existentialist will SEE the rationalist’s landscape to be hard, cold and of uniform color: gray.
If the two lines have to meet, they will need the architecture that offers bridges. Everyday cobble-stone will not work.
Where are the architects? What is their architecture? That is the question I am struggling to find …