Dear Nathaniel,

Since we spoke two days ago, I have been reflecting
on the issues of the history of philosophy,
the philosophy of history, the nature of history
and, of course, underlying it all, the nature of
philosophy itself.

As you may have inferred from our conversations, the term
"philosophy" makes me uncomfortable. It is pretentious and 
promises something that it cannot deliver. Etymologically,
philosophy is translated as "love of wisdom", - but a better
description is a passion for thought. One should consider 
a "philosopher", if one uses this word at all, as someone who
cares for ... who is passionate about ... who is experienced
in thinking; much as one considers a "musician" someone who
cares for ... who is passionate about ... who is experienced
in making music. Music is not a commodity that one can touch
or wrap into a package, to which one can attach a price or
which one can sell,  but rather something that one hears,
and above all, something that one does. Neither is "philosophy", 
and neither is thought.

I acknowledge that there is a sense in which music can be taught,
but you will probably agree with me, that ultimately, music is
not "taught", it is learned: the sense of music comes to fruition
as the expression of individual experience. It is true that one
can plant a tree, but the tree that shades us is, above all,
a tree that has developed according to the necessities of its own
existence. It's similar with thought. One cannot implant thinking
in a person. At best one can encourage a person to think.
The person who permits himself to be labeled as "philosopher"
is a walking contradiction, because, if he thinks at all,
his thinking must remain his own, and can be communicated
to his colleagues, to his students, to his readers, to his public,
to the world at large, only indirectly, if at all.

The notion that "philosophy" has a "history" is problematic in
two respects. It implies that "philosophy" is an identifiable
object the temporal development of which can be tracked, as one
can, for example measure the height of a tree or the circumference
of its trunk. The notion of history, furthermore, confuses, 
quite generally, phenomena that any of us is able to observe
and to experience, "in real time," i.e. concurrently with its
happening, as one can observe, e.g. a thunderstorm with its
threatening clouds, its thunder and lightning, the downpour,
and the subsequent return of the sun. History as it is 
conventionally considered, is the illusion that experiences of
"events" in the past are accessible to us in a manner similar
if not identical to the manner in which we experience such "events"
in the present, an illusion which, when made explicit in this way,
is obviously unsustainable. The notion of a "history of philosophy"
entails an additional contradiction: not only is "philosophy"
inaccessible as something that has occurred in the past; it is
inaccessible even as something occurring in the present, because
none of us can fathom another's thoughts, - one can barely cope
with ones own.

"History of philosophy" therefore is a conundrum which becomes 
rational, - to my way of thinking - only as a study of certain
classes of texts, in other words, as a subspecies of the studies
of literature. For better or worse, our thinking is inextricably
linked with the interpretation of symbols, be they the notes of music,
the notations of mathematics, or the alphanumeric characters of speech.
In this perspective all communication about thought, about matters
philosophical, is the recitation, the telling, the recounting,
"das Erzaehlen", the story, the history, "die Geschichte" of
philosophy, of thought, - fundamentally ones own. A teacher,
a lecturer, a Professor, who is unwilling or unable to come to
terms with the accounts that others have given of their ideas,
is likely to have much difficulty in developing or expressing
his - or her - own. In this perspective, all accounting of thought
is the story - the history, of ones own thinking; and the (hi)story
of ones own thinking is the only communication of that thinking,
i.e. the only philosophy there is.

Yoyo