I have never studied philosophy institutionally. This is, almost, a fact. When I was in high school a few students were selected (how I don’t know) to participate in the University of Winnipeg’s Mini-U program which was a week’s worth of classes on a topic of the student’s choosing. I chose philosophy (why I don’t know). I remember the basic outlines of certain sessions. We looked at theories of essence in which a knife was evaluated by its knifiness. I remember making a comment and the professor saying I was a closet Nietzschian (I remember neither the comment nor do I know why it would have been associated with Nietzsche). I remember being told that a dog does not think. I remember some high school bantering about how truth can be known.
What I remember most, though, was coming across Zeno’s paradox. I will go from memory so I don’t need to worry about accuracy. Zeno’s paradox explores the nature of two simultaneous and seemingly conflicting processes. As I remember it the paradox was described (either in the original context or taught as an example) as a race in which the runner has a clear start and finish. However, during that run a mathematical process also occurs or can at least describe the runner. Mathematically the space can be divided into halves. Halving a finite space, however, is an infinite process. A half can always be mathematically halved. How can an infinite mathematic process be completed within a finite progression? I am probably stating this horrendously. However, Zeno’s paradox came back to mind as I am reading Husserl in which he attempts to outline the faulty thinking of science in assuming that objective and abstract processes can be the basis for all knowledge, when in reality “the objective is precisely never experienceable as itself.” So Husserl attempts to move back into understanding what a science of the subjective could be.
And more than this Zeno’s paradox came to mind with this image from a newly added blog to my feed, Fuck Theory.