Philosophy in brief?
Mike Labosierre proposed a challenge of twitter-like philosophy in three words / or 73 characters. The answers he got are not very encouraging to think that philosophy in brief is possible. They’re either dogmatic and/or hermetic like ‘no self entity’ or questions, which – although one may argue that they could lead to philosophical thinking – but usually don’t. Three-word philosophy invariably falls into the shallow or the arcane end of the pond. Such brevity is good for commandments, but not necessarily for philosophy, which requires careful analysis and explanations. One could attempt at three-word summaries of different philosophies/philosophers or at expressing a guiding life-maxim (like ‘always double check’ [why not tripple or multiple?]) but the problem is that philosophy invites dialogue, questioning one’s own thinking therefore requiring more that 73 characters. It may be that while literature often profits from brevity, philosophy might be ultimately harmed by it.
No offense, but you seemed to have missed the point. All the reasons you cite in your comment are EXACTLY why it’s a challenge. No one is claiming that the challenge can be satisfactorily met, it’s just for fun! Lighten up and give it a shot of your own! I guarantee you philosophy will escape unharmed.
Neil Espitia | 7:44 pm on the 26th of December, 2009
The way I see it — it’s doing philosophy a disservice trying to twitterize it. Ultimately it’s doing ourselves (as in – humanity) a disservice. While literature may profit immensly from this kind of exercise – although I haven’t seen many examples topping or even matching the one by Hemingway (check out these attempts http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.html ) – philosophy becomes trite in the process.
cheimophiliac | 2:13 pm on the 26th of December, 2009