I must have children – it is not a matter of choice. Why? Because I myself am a child – to not have a child is to act in contradiction with my own existence. Because my generation does not exist independently of the previous one, because we continue the previous generation and intimate the next (intimation in the classroom and the bedroom).
I must have children because it is upon the next generation that the decisions of history rest. Our task, if we have a task, is to further the mechanization and organization of the world such that it can sustain it’s own ordering and securing indefinitely – in other words, be equal to the idea of itself. This task is essentially simple and requires not the power of thought but the power of inquiry and persuasion. This task has been given to us by the previous generation, who could only produce indefinitely, but who could not produce indefinite production itself as such.
The task of the true philosopher in this age is not to “aid with the saving of the Planet” (the production of indefinite producibility), or rather it is not only in this. The philosopher can become technocrat, and may perhaps be commended for this, but this is not a becoming-other in which the philosopher remains a man of Works and of Stillness – rather he contradicts his essence by entering the sphere of production and hubbub.
The task of the true philosopher in our generation is to grasp and hold the seed, to be the rare and the few who do not merely enact other thinking (the true artists of our generation do this), but comprehend it in its truth – and comprehension of other thinking, or the enactment of other thinking is never something like securing a series of propositions or performing an argumentative method.
When the Danger becomes absolute, in other words, after the transcendent danger of world catastrophe is passed and the danger as such becomes immanent (the danger that being will never be grasped otherwise than as an object), then the hermeneutic task of the philosopher will become social – the philosopher/poet/politicien will enact otherwise thinking in stillness and quell the hubbub of objective-determination. This task can never become social while the hubbub continues to produce its own extermination, but only when it becomes absolutely everyday and not threatened by anything at all.
Question of the day: If history in the West since Hegel is determined as the thesis structure of abstract becoming concrete, in other words, having a telic orientation towards its own fulfillment, does the overcoming of western history itself have that structure? Does the grounding question (not “what is”, but “how is?”) gather as a logos towards a futural projection of unity? Or need it not have this telic gathering structure at all – might it have the de-centering sinuous line of physis? Or, does physis gather only futurally?