If we aim to start with that which we know even better than ourselves--are we not beginning at the end? After all, we know that we will die, possibly more certainly than we "know" anything else. Death and decay, the termination of biology and at once its first law---it is against these, indeed in resistance only, that we live. We live around death, amidst death, we live against, in defiance of this universal law; yet death is at once the furthest, most remote and ineffable figure. Around death, yes, but never WITH death. Since we really do have a firm certainty that we are going to die, but (for the most part) don't know the time or the place-- the question is not how or when, but why? And here, most of all, when our knowledge seems the most certain, does it not also seem the most paranoid, the most necessary of illusions to deconstruct since, after all, do our aim and our starting place not coincide?

1 comment:

substantiālis said...

You should present a paper at our philosophy conference. Our website is here:

We select some papers from the conference to be published in our selected proceedings. Think about it.