Philosophising about various important issues is commonly ascribed to people that read a lot, are intelligent, well educated and experienced. Well, it seems to be truth, but are those human beings always wise? Somehow, it is that a person who reflects some significant topics is worth of taking care, being listened, even in order to make a recipient of the philosophy willing to consider their life, restate views and own place in this world. It is OK, however what if a target group get those topics to reflect while it hardly seem to require them at a particular moment?
Is not philosophising characteristic for people who have free time, though? Even if there is a person who works everyday as philosopher or one do it out of pure passion, still it is a matter of time. Although sacrifices have to be made or author has to give up their other life activities, surely the time frame on an axis with consecutively escaping seconds is needed, in order to introduce philosophy to mind. Even this post, I am writing now, will appear here directly because I stole some time from usually busy hours and definitely, it is better to me to release it today before I again reach hectic time, what inevitably will be happening more and more often. Well, brilliant, please take no offence, I do not want to criticize, dismiss, insult anybody who philosophizes. Actually, now, I am doing nothing more than philosophy instead of getting to work, thus if so, it means that, first of all, I criticize myself. Honestly, I am not even ironical now, on the contrary, since I partially mentioned it in a first part of this article, I think a moment of reflection, analysis or synthesis, looking from a different point of view, for many people, including me, is very helpful and moreover necessary from time to time, no matter which form of such routine break one chooses. A man is not a machine though. My aim here is rather to put forward a thesis that people who can afford to focus on philosophising are those who have some minutes free. Thus, it is a factor that definitely do not promote they so called men of action, who do not do the math, nor judge, nor reflect for hours, they just simply act as there is so much to do.
Now it is 2016, while they are many ways to access the global network, it is so easy to make somebody’s thoughts public. Mere one mouse click, one touchpad tap, one screen touch on smart phone tablet are truly sufficient. No matter if you are in Poland, Canada or in the north part of Ethiopia, sitting and sipping a cheap wine or trying on a brand new suit (undoubtedly, fashionable navy). Unconditionally, without queues, without special preparation, right now everybody, who wants to, can be like Hume, Kant or Heller. Despite the obvious fact that such universality and speed have disadvantages and downsides, it is a really great opportunity. People share their thoughts with close relatives, at family parties, at work, at school, with more formal or informal groups and communities they attend to, but also on the Internet. Would any of such currently unknown thinkers issue a book with philosophies at famous publishing house X or an philosophical article at bestselling newspaper Y, if it was possible? Simultaneously, would the one agree on having that hypothetical book on the same shelf as Nietzsche’s “Antichrist” or on publishing, taken out of context snippets of their thoughts, in an infamous tabloid? Questions of that kind, decisions to be made, possible consequences to analysis would definitely appear then. Unfortunately, since one uploads philosophy solely on-line and on their own, a machine called the Internet, i.e. people that co-create it, may not put them. Consequently the publication might start living its own, even a brand new, life.
For a creator misunderstanding, or bad opinion, hate, seem to be the worst repercussions after thoughts are issued. Some of the authors include in their publications statements like “This is only my humble opinion” or even “I do not care what other people say about it, at all”. Yes, but the question is how much humility and thick skin, correspondingly, it represents actually or rather the statements appear in the context because these philosophers will is to protect themselves against unwanted reactions of readers or they aim to show they are superior to all potential haters? The question is if it is possible to influence on all the possible future reactions and opinions? Furthermore, referring to the saying that has been known since early ages, although silence is golden, speech is still silver, therefore one can ask if in fact the worst thing for a creator is not wrong reaction of audience but whether there is not even a particle of this proverbial silver within philosophy – timeless, just small value?