Back To Life

Back To Reality

2022/02/28 English

I read Akiko Ikeda's "Remark". This book contains the ideas of philosophy, and also it is a collection of aphorism which tries to catch the moment in which spontaneous ideas come. In other words, this book isn't the one that tries to discuss something from that moment strictly. So it looks like the 'scattered' book. She is surprised at herself as a mystery, and also is surprised at the world itself if she exists in there. That is also my (primary) problem. I have thought of this world as an enigma. Like Markus Gabriel, it might be interesting if there isn't a total thing which is called 'the world', but there are crowded things as people and things themselves.

I wanted to sink into philosophy because of Akiko Ikeda's book, so I read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" which I had read halfway. Wittgenstein was also the person who can't discuss something steadily, and I heard that he tried to write his ideas as memos (we Japanese describe it as 'to vent') and spread the seeds of problems. Therefore his thinking is unique and funny, I should learn how to think about things philosophically and not what he wrote. Reading this book, I found that the way I think is similar to his (of course, his style is too high for me) and got embraced by him.

Today I thought about philosophy only like that. I might have to read the books about our brains and try to think "why is our consciousness made like this". For example, why does taking pills and incepting chemical things control our minds? If this is true, our free wills are controllable by chemicals. Then, are these 'free' wills? Oh my gosh, I always think these kinds of bothersome things so I sometimes go into darkness and start thinking death. Of course, the things I think in my head have their limit fatally.

I might be a highly sensitive person. I get injured if I get dissed on LINE, and I can't get recovered soon. But if I took a nap and read Wittgenstein, my mind gets recovered even if they doesn't give me something positive. From this experiment, I think that moving by my 'emotion' is dangerous. Exactly, I sometimes (always?) move by my 'emotion'. For example, I move to the fact that some Ukrainian people have been killed in cruel ways by my 'emotion'. But without the steady discussion in myself, that 'emotion' ends as instant action... but, even if I knew that my 'emotion' is like a monster for me.