The contestation in philosophical discourse has shifted from being ‘idea’ oriented to ‘school’ oriented. In this unnecessarily amended battlefield, a considerable amount of intellectual energy is getting wasted in operational investments. Today, my understanding of good might not interest you as much as the school of thought I might employ in my demonstration. In all of this, nothing irks me more than the passion with which Raduntz criticizes the inability of post-modernism to bring about social change.
First thing first, I do not despise affirmations to different strands or schools of philosophy. Neither do I prefer one over the other. What fascinates me is the inability of subscribers who are finely demarcated from each other to even ponder upon what we are losing in this interscholastic battle. It may be right to focus on the political potential of a structured discourse but what are the political ramifications of not respecting a dissipated one? The fear of differentiation is a bigger cause of dismantling of discourse than actual dissipation. In a constant hunger for contextualization, where are we positioning our respect for consent? What if a woman clicked to be a symbol of modern day liberalism does not wish to be liberal at all; or is irritated of her ‘identity hijacking’ by larger political narratives that reduce her to a mere pawn of propaganda. There’s a fundamental difference between one’s belief in a particular school of thought and one’s choice of being associated with such narrative. The overemphasis on politicization of discourse cannot be deified on the expense of the varying degree of association the constituents of discourse choose to accept. The institution shall not suffocate the idea, but that is precisely what is happening.
So what is there if not contextualization; maybe de-contextualization or multi-contextualization? If one may still choose to stick to the rigidity of institution-based analysis, they might call it decadence of post-modernism; a sense of cynical-anarchism. This is precisely where they get wrong because the most intrinsic characteristic of this viewpoint (if it is one) is hope. The strength of one’s political nature is not dependent on one’s continuous and sometimes involuntary association to a macroscopic structured thought-institution. This is even truer when one’s nature is not anthropocentric but is cosmopocentric; or what one may say, an external construction. An interesting observation here would also be to see one’s identification with a school as a flexible journey and not as an irreversible process. Affiliation will not affect the political nature of the discourse if the same is not given the significance it is given today. So, a gay person can subsequently become straight and vice versa without making himself a subject matter of identity politics mudslinging.
So where do we go from here? If not non-disciplinary inquiry then at least towards inter-disciplinary respect. It is not the validation of institution and the theoretical schema of the same that enable our true understanding of virtue or in the maintenance of a strong political representation. The same, is rather, achieved by active empathy and the meta-relation of inter-sectarian understanding of things. There is politics in my understanding of my own context and non-context; my own body understands its representative potential without being actually physically represented. After all, what is right based politics without representation (of consent).