A philosopher cannot be a hero. The archetype of the hero is a purely rational mode at its limit, when everything is put at stake for what one considers one’s own, what one knows for certain, what one does not doubt. Here “rational” is used in an ontological sense, as the function of preserving an already existing structure. The philosopher, however, is always in doubt; it is precisely this that prevents him from becoming stuck in the traces of his own activity and allows him to remain in a contemplative mode. The hero, on the other hand, does not doubt; there is no such thing as a doubting hero. The hero is commitment, a passionate mode directed toward the future, whereas the philosopher abides in the present moment. This does not mean that a philosopher cannot perform heroic acts; it only means that he does so accidentally (not out of convictions), but out of humility before the context.
°●°○°○°○○°○°°▪︎○°
If anyone thinks that a philosopher is irrefutable based on her intelligence alone. She had done her job.
- Marco
○°○°°○°○°○°▪︎°
Note: it's a philosophical construct of the antihero, or better put the philosophical agency of an antithesis in 'not doing'. (I am thinking of this in terms that processes negation - as this theory suggests.)
- Marco
°●°●°●●°●°○°○°
It is absolutely necessary for maturity that there should be:
1. Complete simplicity which goes with humility, not in things or possessions but in the quality of being.
2. Passion with that intensity which is not merely physical.
3. Beauty; not only the sensitivity to outward reality but being sensitive to that beauty which is beyond and above thought and feeling.
4. Love; the totality of it, not the thing that knows jealousy, attachment, dependence; not that as divided into carnal and divine. The whole immensity of it.
5. And the mind that can pursue, that can penetrate without motive, without purpose, into its own immeasurable depths; that has no barrier, that is free to wander without time-space.
⠀
Krishnamurti’s Notebook
No comments:
Post a Comment