This post is archived. Opinions expressed herein may no longer represent my current views. Links, images and other media might not work as intended. Information may be out of date. For further questions contact me.
UPDATE, August 28, 2013: The work has been published.
The reason I decided to put an end to my euroblog was to allow myself enough time to focus on my philosophical interests. As of late July 2013, I have been committing most of my free time to the writing of an essay on the thinkable.
This is a logicophilosophical work, which shall represent the philosophical backstop to many of my ideas. Most of its aspects are elaborated in the abstract, requiring therefore a closer, more careful reading. However once understood in full, it shall offer a clear indication of where I stand on a number of theoretical issues and themes ranging from epistemic methodology, to the understanding of politics, economics and history as creation, even though such topics are not explicitly discussed.
It is an essay on the thinkable, on how things are perceived, on what are facts in the constitution of a case, on the dynamic between experience and the figures of the thinkable. While I do not really like labels, as they may allude to bodies of thought that can differ from my work, I could claim that, broadly speaking, I am propounding a theory of skepticism and relativism.
In producing this work, I have chosen not to include any specialized terminology or rely on any esoteric, obscurantist discourse. I make use of common English, and generally write in a simple way. The objective is not to place any linguistic or other barrier. All that one will need is to be able to follow the syllogisms.
I have also opted for a very hierarchical and rigorous presentation of the propositions therein. There are primary propositions signified by a numerical sign, which are then followed by comments on them with an extra value appended to their serial number. For instance, sentence 1 is a proposition, sentence 1.1 is the first comment to that proposition, 1.2 is the second comment to the first proposition, 1.1.1 is the first comment to the first comment of the first proposition etc. There are more than one comments to each statement and more sub-notes, hence there may be a proposition with a serial number “18.104.22.168.2.1”. An extra level of depth is added by an additional dot followed by a number. Increasing numerical values indicate the next sentence, proposition or comment at its respective level of depth. Perhaps a visual representation can help, with the “—” (dash) symbol only included in this illustration to suggest the level of depth:
This work shall attain the form of a series of notes on the subjects concerned. It shall not be an exhaustive treatise, since its word-count will amount to approximately 10.000 words, which makes it rather ‘short’ for such a demanding task. Nonetheless the length of a text depends on the end sought, meaning that a limited, rather narrow objective does not require a book-length exposition of ideas. Hence, such economizing attitude on words is not accidental, nor does it indicate a shortage of ideas. The decision was taken after careful consideration, to develop the “kernel” of my thought, a contained text with an organic form, which may then be incorporated into other, more comprehensive works, or which may provide the fundament upon which other essays may be predicated.
Lastly, I expect to have it prepared by the end of August 2013, though I might publish it a few days/weeks later due to practical reasons. At any rate, I shall post it on this website, in the form of a pdf file, under the category Essays (which now is empty) and it shall be publicly available free of charge under a Creative Commons license.
Thank you for your interest