THE SMALL BODY OF CRITICISM A brief collection of writings summarizing my most profound and comprehensive critical attitude so far. Based on earlier writings such as the revised Metaphysical Critique. It is arranged in a kind of Pascal’s triangle, from four categories to one, with the idea that four is the only necessary foundation. PART I. QUA AESTHETICS 1. Empty Philosophy. Philosophy is, more than just a love of wisdom. It is also a pursuit of ideas. On one hand, it might be important to have a better idea than philosophy, and in this way, philosophy might be limiting itself by having its own great idea to begin with, unless ‘philosophy’ is the greatest idea, in which case there must be a lot of ideas that are part of philosophy that are much worse ideas, that in fact, don’t even relate with the main idea of philosophy. On the other hand, if there are better ideas, some of these ideas might not be philosophical, and it leads to a concept that, with enough ideas, philosophy would become obsolete. Not even universal, just marginalized to the point of having no discrepancy over domains. On the other hand, philosophy is not about having no idea, and if philosophy becomes completely reductive, ideas are clearly the most important thing, leading to the idea that philosophy is contradictory: either it is reductive, and ignores ideas, or it is exaggerative, and does not exist as a discipline. 2. Problems with Criticism. On the one hand, it might be important to solve real problems. On the other hand, the expertise at solving problems is itself an obsession with the nomenclature involved in solving them. As soon as there is a critical agenda, there is a lifestyle that is self-sufficient involving solving problems. As soon as the discipline is sufficiently capable of solving problems, it has already solved the problems by being a discipline! 3. The Critical Aesthetic Fallacy of Metaphysics: The trend of males to choose the life of an artist instead of becoming a beautiful woman. The woman may live a more pleasant life, even have a better mind. But the male, accustomed to being male, desires to improve his set of critical tools, and the new, more beautiful world (with or without the woman he might become), tempts him to indulge his artistic tastes again and again. He becomes a voyeur, and as a result, he has a habit to become a voyeur. It becomes by turns masochistic, and by turns un-progressive. He improves his pain, but not his pleasure. He lacks experience with pleasure, even though the whole world has improved again and again. He becomes highly responsible for the world, and completely un-adept at making use of it. 4. Encountering the Ideal. Philosophy can always be made of the ideal. The ideal provides a form that can be filled with logic. Mathematics is one example. Other examples are logics based on aesthetics, proofs based on religion, notions based on existence, epiphanies, etc. Although the philosophy can be based on the object, whether it is ideal or not, as I illustrated at point #1, philosophy itself cannot be based exclusively on ideas, or it would not be philosophy. Neither can philosophy ignore ideas, since this results in having no content. Therefore, the aesthetic ideal sits in the middle of philosophy, without providing anything other than inspiration. PART II. QUA REALISM 5. The Basic Problem. A philosopher is a kind of wizard. An un-realized wizard. If he is good, he has great power to make use of some implement of logic, metaphysics, ethics, etc. to change the world for the better. But, if he is not good, then he has no power whatsoever. Therefore, the philosopher is in a great bind: to either become a great philosopher, and therefore a bad wizard, or to be no philosopher at all, and not make any confrontations with the problem. This pseudo-wizard problem is a problem about problems, but its only solution is not to have a problem. 6. The Problem of Picasso. Another problem arises: that the world itself has the same pseudo-wizard problem, although in a way that indicates that it is less easily resolved. Even if the philosopher solves the basic problem by not having a problem, the world might still have a problem, and there is no chance that by having no problem the philosopher would resolve the world’s problem! Therefore, the philosopher needs to work with flawed tools --- the world’s situation --- and reach something that looks like a solution ---- not having a problem ---- this is much like Cubism. A flawed composition looks good if you’re a Picasso. But it is still flawed! The world will only accept a flawed solution to a flawed problem! And the world cannot deny that a problem is flawed! Now we can glorify the philosopher and say he is perfect, or we can say that ugliness is the very nature of logic! However, the philosopher is probably not perfect, since he had the perfect problem, so we are left with three very different categories: 1. The philosopher, who is not yet a wizard, 2. Logic, which is perfect art, and 3. The world, which is imperfect, and not art. 7. Silent Philosophy. On the one hand, philosophy might just be the process of ‘passing over in silence’ --- such-and-such Picassos did exist, and their work is remarkable, and we perceive it or not, etc. But when we have a fine critical attitude, so long as these artists are not God (if we make that assumption), then it is automatically possible to pass some sort of judgment, unless we view art as a form of ugliness. Now, if there is a project that is not art, or if logic is a translation of art rather than art itself (say, an imperfect and changing world within a notionally perfect yet fixed art world), then it becomes possible to take examples from art and apply them to the world of philosophy. However, so far as the examples from art are always perfect examples relative to logic, the quest of the logician remains a silent one of imitativeness and not mental prostitution. However, mental prostitution might be more ideal than ‘silent’ philosophy. If philosophy can be treated as itself a form of art, then the same process can occur for philosophy, if only it can be translated. But, unless there are infinite disciplines or a dialectical circle, some of these disciplines must be silent, as long as the sources are perfect. It may then be necessary to view philosophy as the world, just as art may be viewed as the world. PART III. QUA THE DIMENSIONAL 8. Autobiographical Fallacy Let’s say we have a perfect world for constructing philosophy, and it works out so far as we are concerned, but there remains data ‘outside the set’ --- that is, outside of our own sphere of assumed importance. In that case, everything we might ever construct is part of our own growing air / paper space, and it becomes injust to concern ourselves with just our own problems as soon as we’re perfect at solving them. But neither is it appropriate to concern ourselves with just the problems of our society, or our planet, etc. because each of these things also has its own limitations, the more so if the world is incapable of providing philosophical solutions. Now the only appropriate concern is the largest problems, in an ever-escalating series. Philosophy in this sense appears to be detached from individual problems, and concerned only with the universal. On the other hand, it is not a fallacy to solve these problems insofar as they can be solved. It is only a fallacy to concern oneself with everything if there is no content within the everything. Philosophy requires a universal standard, or it is back to point #1 with the concept of ideas that can’t be exaggerated. Philosophy becomes holy writ. 9. Complexity, complexity, complexity. So far I have discussed the role of perfection in philosophy, but at this point it becomes important to introduce a second dimension: complexity. If you think about biology, or science, or math, or magic, a large part of the picture amounts to complexity. Complexity is that stuff that requires understanding. It is also the stuff that ultimately bears scrutiny. Complexity is the fuel for the future. Complexity is the part of the idea that is originally exciting. If we could just capture the essence of complexity, we could solve a lot of problems. Complexity has intelligence. Complexity, if perfect, is a possible foundation for life. So, the second part of dimensionality is not just perfection in any language, but complexity in the right language. PART IV. QUA THE PARADISAL 10. Now it becomes necessary to return to the fundamental philosophical concepts. Metaphysics is what we mean by the right language of existence. Metaphysics is the universal language which must be affirmed to reach ideal reality. Likewise, some technical nomenclature of the universal languages of metaphysics must be reached, on the basis of what is perfect about each form of logic, however archaic, absurd, or unconventional. This is not meant to be restricted only to philosophy, but results universal for philosophy will be valid for the sake of philosophy. However, I suspect it will be easier to find the actual universal in some form, than the technical perfection of philosophy. After all, universalism is but one form of philosophy, once it is considered philosophy. In this sense, philosophy can be considered the realm of ideas. Where the ideas emerge from philosophy, the ideas themselves can be considered as the complex language of the ideal reality. It is then for philosophy to embrace the fundamentals of each notion, and from them reach for the precise formulas, ideal objects, autobiographies, and aim for the ideal world of philosophy, and ultimately, everyone’s ideal world. Readings. Antin, David. I never knew what time it was. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Nathan Coppedge / SCSU 2016/06/08, p.