The Enigmatic Gap in Philosophical Discussion

The Enigmatic Gap in Philosophical Discussion

The asymmetry of people's selective reading in relation to another's creates an enigmatic gap when discussing philosophical views. The first problem is the issue of time spent in relation to the time available while committing oneself to understanding any thinker. The second issue is the degree of intelligibility one is willing to engage in. Are you reading merely to digest the 'gist' of what a thinker is saying? Or are you striving to understand the intricate architecture and details of their ideas?

The Dilemma of Perspective

Time spent, whether trying to grasp the 'gist' or the details, inevitably leaves us with the dilemma of always having an 'inadequate' argument or viewpoint. This is the inescapable impasse of 'having a perspective.' If you only ever obtain the 'gist' of philosophical ideas, you risk falsely portraying the wholeness of any idea. Essentially, you are at high risk of presenting thought and criticism superficially. And yet, this is the most pragmatic mode of encountering a diversity of ideas.

On the other hand, if you dedicate yourself solely to a set of thinkers, you begin to witness the complexity of any idea, as well as its limits. However, because you have spent so much time and effort attempting to understand these thinkers, you become increasingly susceptible to dogmatism and attachment. Essentially, you become more convinced than anyone else of your correctness due to the depth of your engagement.

The Risk of Depth and Diversity

In sum, the pursuit of depth risks limiting one's encounter with a diversity of ideas that could challenge and provoke readjustment. Conversely, the mere pursuit of a diversity of ideas risks reducing and simplifying what is actually at stake within each idea.

Possible Solutions: The Impossible and the Inadequate

What, then, is the solution to this dilemma? Here, I can only provide two options: an impossible one and an inadequate one.

1.The Impossible Solution: To pursue depth and diversity simultaneously for all philosophical ideas. This is impossible due to mere finitude—the lack of time.

2.The Inadequate Solution: To maintain an awareness of one's own inadequacy in perspective, given the reasons previously mentioned.

Thinking as a Courageous Endeavor

Nevertheless, admitting an inadequate perspective is not a pessimistic resignation but an opening for encountering the other—where nothing is guaranteed, and everything is risked. This is why thinking itself is a much more courageous endeavor than previously supposed. Truth is not found on one side or the other, but rather between-us.