Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

Workings of the Philosophical and the Political

r P!P! Pokker event " 7th #arch at ept of philosophy, Calicut University
$! %ourdunathan

1. Queries 1.1. 1.2. 1.3.

Is there a relation between the Philosophical and the political? If so, how the philosophical and the political are related? Can philosophy be philosophical without being political and if yes, what is the nature of such philosophical devoid any political? 1.4. hat are the for!s of philosophical"political or political"philosophical into which t we are wrapped#trapped with? 1.$. %ow to revitali&e the philosophical political content? 2. Field of Philosophical Analysis 2.1. 'he proper field of philosophical analysis is the real! of the non" philosophical. 2.2. (y reflective engage!ent of the non"philosophical, is the real! of the philosophical by which philosophy turns itself to be philosophical 2.3. 'he )non"philosophical* here refers to the +eo"political, social and cultural space, responsible for the e!ergence of a particular type of syste! of thought 2.4. 'hese syste!s of thought in turn paved way for e,istential consolidation and -ustification of the geopolitical and cultural space or they e!erge as a criti.ue of it. 2.$. 'hus we can spea/ of two types of the philosophical with reference#in relation to the political 0 they are 1i2 centrali&ing syste!s of thought or 1ii2 a criti.ue of central syste! of thought towards the pro"centric possibilities 2.3. 'he perpetuating syste!s re!ain as )ontological # theoretical apparatus* whose nature is functional0appropriative and !anipulative 2.4. 'he criti.ue syste!s of thought function as pro-ective appropriative 2.5. 'hose syste!s of thought that can be classified as ontological apparatus categori&ed the!selves as the centric for!s of thought where as critiqueapparatus re!ain as a critical voice against the centric for!s of thought. 2.6. 7or instance, in India, one can spea/ of the 8edic# 8edantic as the ontological centric for!s of thought and the non"8edantic as the criti.ue apparatus of the 8edantic. 2.19. 'he politics of philosophy either is of the centre or of the criti.ue of the centre but in view of the centre.

1|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

'here is 1iiii2 sense of being philosophical 0 na!ely philosophy addressing itself 0 1let !e not dwell !uch on this real! right now2 hen philosophy addresses itself, then there is the proble! of sophistry, or !ere ideali&ation: ;nowledge for its own sa/e lac/s hu!an social interest. 2.12. Philosophical te,ts are pondered as pedagogical tools to the interpretation of the non"philosophical. Philosophical te,ts are pondered not necessarily for pro!oting )te,tual authenticity* 1'e,tual authenticity itself is a philosophical issue2 but for conte,tual authenticity based on an ethic of social living.
2.11. 3. How does a philosophical system turn to be political? 3.1. hen it does not set itself free fro! the reflection of its own syste!, philosophy falls prey of be"co!ing the political and appropriating everthing into its politics or political. 3.2. (ecause Philosophy involves reflection, it sets itself free to reflect on its own reality by way of distancing itself fro! what already is, fro! its own world, fro! its own syste! fro! its own space. 'his is e,actly is the strength of philosophy. If it does not set itself free fro! its own syste!, it is endangered to the level of a dog!a, a syste! that li!its any reflection. It falls bac/ to itself. It is self"enclosure within its own world. It is a refusal to thin/ critically. It is a refusal to !ediation, relation, and pro,i!ity of the"other. 'he proble! is <elf" enclosure constraining of refle,"action. It is pro!otes an habitual adherence to the centrality and totality of =e!ory: it is a !ilitant refusal to thin/ anew. %aber!as points out that philosophy re!ains true to its classical tradition by renouncing it. 3.3. >n the other hand, those philosophies that e!erged fro! social reality, reflecting?responding to social issues, fro! the periphery have always done to pro!ote @eflection " Anderstanding 0 and @elation. 'hey have done this not by distancing ? isolation the!selves but as a response to a need to place the! with regard to the center" in total e,teriority. 3.4. Pre"<ocratic thought appeared fro! a political, econo!ic and geopolitical periphery and not e,clusively fro! +reece. 3.$. In the !odern ti!es, e,istentialis! e!erged as a response to the dehu!ani&ing war"center. 3.3. =ar,ian thought e!erged as a response to feudal capitalistic !anipulative econo!ic"social reality. In the Indian side, =aterialis! 1though often degraded as hedonistic2 e!erged fro! the periphery as the thought pattern for the affir!ation of the real. 3.4. 'he philosophies that have e!erged as a reaction to and as a response to social proble!s purported to the affir!ation of the e,istence of the )Bon"(eing*,
2|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

3.5.

which is otherwise treated as the e,terior other in self"enclosing syste!s. Bevertheless, we should also ta/e note that the philosophies, which e!erged fro! the periphery, unconscious of its need of reflection, have also fallen bac/ to the center"stage. 'he 7allacy of the Political of philosophy 1two types2 3.5.1. 'he fallacy of the politics of the centric for!s of thought is that of begging the .uestion, reproducing itself, appropriating the !any in to one 3.5.2. hereas the fallacy of those for!s of thought that e!erge as a criti.ue of the centric, as critical thin/ing that originates fro! periphery is unfortunately ends by directing itself to the center. It turns itself to be pro"centric. 3.5.3. In both these for!s of thought, the issue of 'ruth is assu!ed to be singular, unilateral and that too towards"the truth of the center. hen 'ruth as the truth"center reduced to a !onolithic all pervasive di!ensions, it is its death as critical philosophy. It is to turn away fro! the critical politics in favour of the hu!an interests of the non"beings. 3.5.4. >ntology and ideology is an end to critical thin/ing. In grounding in and ending upon as an ontology 1a self"closed thought2 philosophy losses its political, social and critical significance. 3.5.$. 'he history of philosophy is filled with the facets of such ontological reductionis! to the center"stage. Critical thin/ing when it shelters to the center, 1however safe it !ay be2 it turns out to be !e!ory, a sheer !atter of repetition of the tradition. here critical thin/ing ends, ontology begins. >ntology ends up by thin/ing itself as the only reality. It defines itself as the (eing. (y defining itself as a privileged being, thought 1ontology2 separates ? distances itself fro! the presence of the being of the other. (y distancing, it defines itself as the (eing as against the idea of (eing"in"the"world in relation with the other.

4. Singularity claims by a culture of reproduction 4.1. 'hus both for!s of thought are productive of singularity clai!s. Cither =aterialis! or idealis! for e,a!ple by affir!ing each one*s pri!acy or its center"stage, co!!its the error of perceiving everything fro! its own world. 'his is the philosophical proble! of )>ne against =any*: for what is defined as (eing or >ne or foundational is conceived in such a way it supersedes over the !any. 'he very definition of >neness and its alleged centerlines counts against the presence of the =any"ness, the totalities with in totalities. D sheer politics of sub!erging the particularities into one and the only one.
3|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

'a/e for instance, for the +ree/s, )(eing is and Bon (eing is not* 1Par!enides2. (eing is that which is +ree/, the lu!en, or the light of +ree/ culture. Dnd this (eing e,tends as the frontiers of %ellenis!. >ver the other borders of +recian %ellenis!, there e,ists non"being. It is this idea of (eing 1according to the +ree/s2 provided the very foundation 1that which enco!passed2 or the totality or the social and political space for defining )e,istence*. (eing is li/e the light that illu!ines an area but not itself seen. (eing is not given to see"ability or sense perception. Dnd what it illu!inates or ta/es hold of, or enslaves is the things, the ob-ects, and the slaves, the non" +ree/s, the non"being. 'he non"being therefore is an )is not entity*. D typical )!aya* reality. 'his sense of ontology is found in entire history of western philosophical tradition fro! the +ree/ to the !odern. 'he tension between (eing and Bon (eing, Per!anence and 'ransitory, Cternal and the te!porary: <pirit or =atter: >ne and =any: Eual and Bon" Eual: <oul?=ind or (ody?!atter: Eivine or hu!an: the !ale 8s the fe!ale, hu!an or ani!al: nature or culture: <cience or Pseudo <cience, civili&ed 8s the uncivili&ed, the ruler 8s the ruled, the powerful 8s the powerless, the capitalists 8s the poor etc. provide rich ground for philosophical analysis on the .uestion of (eing. Cach ca!p tries to affir! 1provides episte!ic or ontological -ustifications2 its own clai!s of !eaningfulness fro! its own stand point or school of thought. 'hese are the philosophies that turned the!selves towards the center"space, ignoring or by passing the"other, the differentia of clai!s and their e,istence. 'his is a cultural politics of reproduction for self legitimization 1Fyotard2

$. The politics of these forms of thought $.1.1. (y e!ploying the !ethod of deduction and the !ethod of doubting the"other2 Eescartes* cleverly establishes such center of the rational being whose nature 1derived logically2 is sui"generis, that which e,ists in itself*. 'here by Eescartes establishes the supre!acy of the thin/ing ego, and the subordination of the >ther beings 1the spatial2 as secondary. It is not far fro! truth that before we clai! )ego cogito* there was already the pheno!ena, the appearance and political practice of )ego conquiro. )ego conquiro: is the practical foundation of ego cogito. >ntology e!erges fro! the practical conte,t of the tension between the con.ueror and the con.uered in hu!an history. 'he )ontologis!* is the thin/ing of the center: it refers to the (eing of the political center"space. It is the thin/ing !anifests and e,presses as (eing. It is an enco!passing totality. 'he history of Curopean
4|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

colonialis! pro-ected a story of philosophy that e,plained and -ustified political and cultural do!ination of the >ther (eings with in the life world. 'he technocratic Curopean !ale represents the ) ego-conquiro and the ego cogito. 'he ability to be a perceiver and the vulnerability to be treated as an ob-ect of perception 1perceived ones2 again 1sub-ective idealis!2 veils the above"!entioned sense of ontologis! of the being of the center. %istory of philosophy as well, is largely a story of the supre!acy of the ontology of the center. $.1.2. It is the )!anifestation* of the (eing of the center over#against the )non" being or lesser beings in the world. <uch a !anifestation is purposive, interest bound. 'he %eideggarian ).uestion of (eing* is to be situated in this conte,t of the tension between Being and Being-in-the-world. It is radical political .uestion in the sense that it purports to unveil the ontology and the orthodo,y of the center or the technocracy of being of the center and alternatively it posits the centeredness of#for (eing"in" the"world. 1D call to funda!ental ontology2. 'his for! of !anifestation 1according to %eidegger2 is either co!prehension or appropriation or both. 'his is also /nown as )!ediation*. $.1.3. %owever, by treating the">ther as the ene!y, the (eing of the center distances itself fro! the">ther because the other is either dangerous or vulnerable and therefore not palatable: the (eing of the center )appropriates* the">ther in continuous subordination. 'he cu!ulative effect of such !ediation 1co!prehension or appropriation2 is the pheno!ena suffering. 'he pheno!enology as its na!e i!plies, concerns itself with what is given, as the conse.uence of conceiving reality as One and only One. $.1.4. In defense of such ontologis!, Beit&he argues in favour of the supre!acy of the super!an racis!. If one atte!pts to draw a war"!ap in the face of the earth one could easily see how centric for!s of thought and pro"centric for!s of thought as power centers historically !onopoli&e 1d2 the!selves towards the (eing of the center.
3. The question is then 3.1. Should not one proclaim the death of the center and is such proclamation s! be treated as necessarily ethical leave alone the political of it! " 3.2. 'he atte!pt to erode the autono!y of the center is an atte!pt to restore the space of the periphery. %eidegger observes that, )the ontology of the center is Gpeculiar dictatorship of the public realm na!ely the real! of the non"center, that which is considered as non"being. %e further states, G #very determination
5|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

3.3.

3.4.

3.$.

of the essence of man that already presupposes an interpretation of being without as$ing about the truth of Being, whether $nowingly or not, is metaphysical ontological2H Ia.ues Eerrid*s criticis! of !odern fra!e of thought as )logo centric*, whose central concepts are )eidos, arche, telos*, needs to be viewed fro! this angle. 'he danger of such ontological center whether it is that it pro-ects itself as the only correct !odel of e,planation of reality. <uch a pro-ection in the political and social life tends to envelop and enable newer for!s of coloni&ing the other into its politics, econo!ics and culture. 'hus, there is the inhuman in such ontologis!. 'he being of the center"self is e,terior to being of the"other: and therefore vulnerable to e,ploitation and discri!ination. Its relation is not Pra,is but a practice of do!estication for do!ination. It cul!inates into a political technological productive culture that sets itself against non"sufficient"people. It is denial of the rights of the >ther as the >ther. It negates the intrinsic worth of the >ther. C,istence here is referred as the e,istence of the ruling"political" hu!an alone and the >ther is unfortunately is treated as )sub-ectvised ob-ects within the established nor!ative culutrual politics*. %itler, borrowing heavily fro! Biet&sche, practiced that the one who is Powerful has the right to e,ist and the powerless is conde!ned to death. 'he !orality of ontologis! believes that )the stronger has the right to e,ist and the wea/er has its right in so far as it is sub-ective towards the stronger 1political Earwinis!2 and if not the wea/er needs to be strategically e,cluded or isolated to the real! of powerless and thus towards self annihilation. Ds a political philosophy ontologis! 1centric or pro"centric2 conceives and conceals violence and therefore unethical. 'he need then is to revitali&e viable politics of political philosophies in favor of those fragile who are not"sufficiently treated as beings within historical conte,tual specificities. It is a cultural her!eneutics arising out of their cultural !e!ory of subordination against for!s of oriental or classical centric or pro"centric for!s of orthodo,y with a recognition of the non"centers with a politics of solidarity. % record my sincere appreciations and congratulations and best wishes always to &r.'.(. 'o$$er for enabling )critical political thin$ing in the young minds all through his organic academic enabling. 'han/ you

6|Page

Calicut University, 7th March 2014, Philosophy and the Political

nathanlourdu1639Jg!ail.co!

7|Page