We with our existence are born with question. Existence is question. Can we avoid it? I doubt it. Every claim, even claim of Rorty that, we can not view the world as philosopher tries to do, from a neutral stand point & therefore, the philosophical questions are all wrong & with them all the answers.
But see that even Rorty is making some claim here. Claim is an answer. Claim has a history, it has a question behind it. Even Rorty in his clever argument can not escape the question. Claim tries to fill the empty spaces. The empty spaces are the question. So, in my view, mystery is question. The biggest mystery that we live in this world is ‘existence’. So, as long as there is mystery, there evidently remain a question. We exist, even the structure, the language, the culture exists. Is existence a question posed by our structure, our language? Might be. Can I get out of it, the structure, or get to its, the structure’s root to find where & when the question of existence originated? No. I can not. See, here with every question and every answer I am making some claim. Rorty cleverly argues that all these claims or the conceptions of answers or truths are our beliefs. Why would we need it? Why do we want to fill ‘the empty spaces’? why do we need a ‘story’? wrong question perhaps, aren’t they?
Rorty says, that every knowledge, the scientific, technical, etc all have their place in our structure, he is not a sceptic. But, the follow up question, or just the question of ‘philosophy’ about, which knowledge is authentic? Or true? Is a wrong question to ask as the notion of ‘true knowledge’ & the ambitious task which philosophy tries to pull out of finding the most true knowledge or authentic knowledge is just impossible. Fair enough.
We have written stories, we are writing stories in the form of technology, all the sciences, history, our everyday lives etc. when we discard the question, ‘why have we been doing that and why are we doing it now?’, we are left only with one story, that we are leading a pragmatic way of life. In my words demand and supply. So in this context even doing stories in the form of ‘philosophy’ is also some kind of a supply to some kind of a demand. In other words, even the ‘philosophical stories’ have also been useful or are being useful in some way or the other to us. So asking questions, the wrong questions, is useful in some way.
Also in some way, everything we see in this world is useful to someone or the other therefore it is existing. So no critic of philosophy is neither wrong nor right. No philosophy is neither wrong nor right. Neither am I right nor wrong. No direction is right nor wrong.
Then what is the purpose of this article?
Wrong question !
It fills some page in a story somewhere according to the use and that is all.
We encounter death, we witness death of our fellow human beings as well as other living beings, isn’t death a ‘mystery’? can it not be considered as a ‘mystery’, devoid of any structure? if it is considered so, isn’t it free of any shackles of our perceptions? isn’t it then something which is not the function of our structural creation?
Death and existence, two sides of a single coin.
If we can not have the ‘god’s eye view’, or we can not assume to have it or we or convinced not to have it, we should respect the conviction. We should just leave this project behind and silently submerge in the ‘anonymous anonymity’ for it to operate. even my above sentence is non-sensical but we are doomed to non sense, when we desperately want to make sense.