A Practical Method of Self-Reflection

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

I offer everyone a tool that might be useful when writing philosophical texts. The idea arose from studying the cultural characteristics of the Aymara. I was particularly interested in how these people conceptualize time (quite differently from what we’re used to). But this (as linguists argue) is also connected to their linguistic peculiarities. In Aymara, you can’t simply say “it rained” without specifying how you know it. Linguists distinguish levels of attestation. For example, the suffix -wa denotes information obtained through personal sensory experience (seeing/hearing it myself), while the suffix -pacha or the use of a quotation verb indicates second-hand knowledge or conjecture.

In other words, the language itself is structured in such a way that you must always cite the source of your assertions.

I thought that when writing philosophical texts, it’s very important to reflect on what you’re writing, as you often get carried away in your imagination, considering your creations to be the great truth.

For these purposes, I thought it would be useful to refine this approach and introduced another category. I’ll explain it in practice right away.

For example, it was raining outside. What can I say about this, depending on the source?

  1. {I see} It was raining, and I saw it (I personally observed it with my own eyes)
  2. {I hear} It was raining, and I was told about it (I heard it from somewhere)
  3. {I understand} It was raining, and I realized it (I completed the sentence after seeing traces of rain on the street or hearing noise outside the window, meaning I understand it with certainty)
  4. {I thirst} It was raining, and I want it to be so (there’s no evidence, but I really want it to feel like rain – I’m just wishful thinking, but I’m not entirely sure)

See how cleverly this works:

Thus, a certain narrative discipline [UNDERSTAND] develops. I can’t just cleverly manipulate sentences to deceive the reader (and especially myself) [THIRST]. It’s like I’m being interrogated in court [UNDERSTOOD/SEE].

LIMITATIONS:
It’s tempting to start using this everywhere. And the media should be legally required to label all their messages (that’s humor). BUT. I view this as a purely philosophical, practical method [UNDERSTOOD/THIRST]. It can be used for self-reflection while writing, as a tool. It will help you stay on solid ground, but it can also seriously damage your creativity. You can become overconfident in your categorical statements.

Strictly speaking, professional writers don’t need this. They usually already know where they’re mistaking wishful thinking for reality (oh, how Nietzsche would argue with me). But it can be useful for self-examination or, for example, for personal correspondence with another person who knows about it. Perhaps someone will be interested in this; try it yourself.

2 Likes
2

That’s valuable. I have a brother with whom I can spell out my latest theory without worrying that he thinks I’m being dogmatic or that I don’t know the counter arguments. Sometimes you can just be engrossed in building the artifice. That kind of relationship is probably rare, though.

1 Like
3

I feel the prospect to be valuable, but I feel I don’t entirely understand your implications of benefits clearly. But, if it means what I think it does, then that might change my mental dialogue. There is a strong advantage of using it to work on philosophical thoughts, especially while Self-Reflecting as you said. I will try the method as per your instructions to check if there is substance in practice.

1 Like
4

After thinking about this a bit more, I’d clarify:

First, the third category (understood) can be subdivided into convincing/unconvincing or sufficient/not sufficient—so that it’s clear whether you’re confident in it or not (be honest with yourself).

Secondly, sometimes you need to specify several parameters, as sentences can be complex.

And thirdly, the fourth category (thirst) is the most difficult, even when you’re alone. But when you analyze a short text, it becomes apparent. Strictly speaking, every statement contains a small amount of THIRST.