The subject and the format of this essay transformed as I began to write it down, I made a decision to introduce not only the development of the declared topic but also to introspectively trace my implicit thoughts and feelings that accompany the very process of academic philosophical writing. The later turned this essay into a confession, it discloses what rather has to be kept silent and what one only admits to themselves when they feel they have nothing to lose. I felt embarrassed while rereading and editing it.
It feels like the whole academic game went mad during the pandemic, even more mad than usual. There is a constant thought in my head that now it is especially important to keep writing and expressing my voice, not to fall silent when the crowd of intellectuals have rapidly activated and started to excessively talk on this or that. One must stay afloat amidst the rising academic noise. …
Philosophical therapy in apocalyptic times
Recently, we began to talk a lot — me, you, politicians, philosophers, our colleagues, mothers, and children. We are panically looking for information and passing it on to each other, trying to apply it to the analysis of the current situation and give predictions. We turn to the experience of the past in the hopes of finding an analog of what is happening and develop reliable guidelines. In a word, we talk to bring certainty and clarity to the situation.
People tend to talk a lot when they are scared of uncertainty. We talk to fill the void of uncertainty. We are rather in a state of anxiety than the state of fear. Unlike fear, anxiety has no object. In a state of anxiety we are afraid of emptiness. Fear, in this sense, is the relief of anxiety, the former has an object and therefore relative certainty — at least we know what to be afraid of. …
Deleuze and Guattari (= D&G) are undoubtedly prophets of modern times.
Their philosophy marked a global shift in our understanding, outlining contours of the new world and of posthumanity, which are only today becoming realities.
Perhaps they even better understood today’s us — where we come from and why — than we understand ourselves, while being already within the world they predicted. More precisely, D&G showed the absurdity of any “from” and “why” in relation to modernity.
The method of comprehending and producing forms of sociality they proposed is radically different from the one still more habitual to us, that is, the teleological one, which tries to answer the question “why, what for?,” …