Writing an essay or an article on philosophy is something that commonly does not happen.
Therefore, it is considered to be a thing for specialists and therefore for specialists. But, we should rather distinguish and, first of all, what “philosophy” is from what “doing philosophy” is.
If philosophy is “love for wisdom” (from ancient Greek , philosophía, composed of (phileîn), “love”, and (sophía), “wisdom”, or “love of wisdom”, then not it is true and therefore it is absolutely false that the philosophy was born in Greece at the dawn of the first millennium BC Indeed, philosophy goes back rather to the need for the human being to understand himself and the surrounding reality; an uninterrupted path, which originates from the primordial Lucy, as represented, for example, today, by the French filmmaker Luc Besson.
Not by chance (and in fact something never happens by chance in the realm of linguistics), “understanding” in Latin is called intelligere and is a transitive verb that indicates a specific action (through the intellect) of man on what he generically we could define the “nature” of things, and, among these, the man himself.
Therefore, philosophy would already be a philosophy in itself. And then, simplifying, an art. And, in such a way, one could also explain why writing an article of philosophy is something that commonly does not happen.
But that is not exactly the case, to me it seems quite obvious. And that is that, being an art, it is practiced only by some that we have called “specialists”. On this point, the much-mistreated philosopher – for his actual Nazi background – Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) could instead guide us to the unveiling and recomposition of the “initial” principle that holds man (and every living thing) inextricably united to technique.
The mistake, because it is often still what happens today, is to behave “as if ‘the technique’ and ‘the man’ were two ‘sizes’ and two things present therein, as if that is the way in which the being himself appears and subtracts he had not already decided about man and technique, that is to say about the relationship between the entity and man, therefore the hand and the word, as well as their essential unfolding “.
And then, in the end, the arcane is revealed: It makes a distinction. Call it the first distinction. It calls the space in which this distinction operates, the “space that by means of this distinction is separated or divided”. This – in reality and therefore beyond that postulate, from which originally make philosophy -, is the first rule of logic as represented by the mathematician, engineering consultant, psychologist, educational consultant, doctor, psychotherapist consultant, author and poet, George Spencer Brown (1923-2016).
The “space of being” which we are called to discuss here is therefore “the space of philosophy” and plausibly of “writing an article of philosophy”.
It is therefore common opinion, even in this case, that it is a question of writing about the truth or falsity of an argument. But, who could deny that logically writing about an experience is not in itself a philosophy. The term “truth”, as we understand it today, did not exist in ancient Greek. The term of comparison is rather , a term with which, in the context of a dialogic relationship between two or more subjects, one of these described to the other / the personal experience properly lived.
Compared to the analysis required here, two other elements immediately break through, beyond space and intellect, namely time and narration and, within the latter but not the last element, it is also useful to remember how the Latins supported rather verba volant scripta manent. And yet, it is another element of representation, which takes over, that quid which is the “thing”, that is itself and not another. Approximately, and therefore non-coherent (see Kurt Gödel 1906-1978), that principle of identity based on which, in Anassimandro’s Greece, was born the philosophy then called “classic”.
And so, we have come to the point of providing some more than a modest indication, hopefully useful.
An article of philosophy is essentially the result of the experience of the writer, of what is lived directly or indirectly (through studies and in-depth studies). It is also a logical-causal argumentative representation, based on the concatenation of elements and propositions (nodes) that come to give shape to the whole discourse. And again, it is an almost obvious representation; that fights the wear of time and draws the reader to itself.
To attract the reader to himself, it is an experience that commonly does not happen to those who write about philosophy. It happens much more easily, for example, with a novel. But, who will have the courage to deny that philosophy was not the novel of the “great” philosophers? Or, allow me one last remark, of all those who, according to the definition of Heidegger, have been (in particular, Parmenides) are and will be the “initial thinkers”?