| I Am Existence - Review Comments |
After being introduced to "I Am Existence" by one of my students, I was appalled by your outrageous claims that "It is a book for some...and goes beyond ANYTHING Friedrich Nietzsche has written." This is one of the most amateurish books written on the subject of philosophy and it is not surprising that you were rejected by eighteen publishers. You mispelled the first word of the book, FOREWARD and things only go downhill from there. Your arguments are both incomprehensible and circular, and you seem to be incapable of forming a complete and coherent english sentence. There are many instances where you forsake the use of proper grammatical english for uniformity, a methodology I have only seen practiced by my 8 year old son. Most of the great works in philosophy took more than a few months to complete, although I am not an expert, and the time period in which your books were completed suggests that very little effort has gone into any type of philosophical insight. I must admit that I was unable to finish the book and at times I found myself attempting to decipher the structure of sentences rather than the simplistic writings and insights. Altoghether, it was tedious, over simplified, and boring.
I hope that I have not offended you, and rather than engaging in "intellectual pissing contests" I would very much like hear what you may (or may not) have to say.
Anonymous
You wrote:
>I hope that I have not offended you, and rather than engaging in "intellectual pissing contests" I would very much like hear what you may (or
You have not offended me. I appreciate your comments on the work, and I agree with some of them about the overall grammar and spelling ect. All I can say is that it was the first edition of my first philosophical work.
>"It is a book for some...and goes beyond ANYTHING Friedrich Nietzsche has written."
I have great admiration for Nietzsche and his works. However, in my opinion, his furthest, or deepest, philosophical point was that everything is "fabrication." It can be found in his work entitled, 'The Will To Power' in the section about art. My work began not by accepting Nietzsche's nihilism, but by facing the fabrication itself.... 'I Am Existence' although a tough read for most people, was extremely beneficial to my efforts: through my inquiry into our conscious existence, I was able to distinguish the basis for who we are from our thoughts themselves.(I might add that it is an original philosophical concept!) The difference between who we are and our thoughts themselves has become the basis for my philosophy.
>Most of the great works in philosophy took more than a few months to complete, although I am not an expert, and the time period in which your books were completed suggests that very little effort has gone into any type of philosophical insight.
My books have taken around three to four months to complete. I look at them as a train of thought, with one book connected to another. They have taken considerable mental effort and will to produce.
>I must admit that I was unable to finish the book and at times I found myself attempting to decipher the structure of sentences rather than the simplistic writings and insights. Altoghether, it was tedious, over simplified, and boring.
That is your opinion. Other readers have felt the same, while others have felt otherwise.
As mentioned, the basis for my philosophy comes down to the difference between who we are and our thoughts themselves, or the "Challenge the Philosophy" proposition. If you, or one of your students, can overcome it that would be great.
Best wishes,
Stephen Garvey
Dear Stephen Garvey,
I appreciate the response and thank you for taking the time to enlighten me in many of the errors I was, unfortunately, ignorant about. My reply is concerning your afterthought, where you wrote "science is constrained by reason". I don't consider this a constraint, but rather a beneficial tool for scientists and philosophers alike. Without it, progress would be seriously hindered by unfounded or completely ridiculous postulations and beliefs. Do you think that philosophising can be accomplished at a serious level without the benefit of reason? Probably not. The same can be said for both of our respective fields. Reason is an invaluable commodity upon which the foundations of both exist. In my humble opinion, the world would be cast into a contemporary "dark ages" if the individuals leading the way in philosophy and science had no sense of reason. Reason is progression, so perhaps, science and philosophy are intertwined at some level and most certainly, dependant.
Anonymous
Thank you for your comments. I have a few of my own to add:
You wrote:
>Without reason, progress would be seriously hindered by unfounded or completely ridiculous postulations and
beliefs.
By the same token, so-called progress could be seriously hindered by reason. Reason and knowledge are not absolute. They bottom out into an unknown. In other words, we must act on FAITH every time we use reason....
>Do you think that philosophising can be accomplished at a serious level without the benefit of reason?
Without reason there would be no philosophy or any other system of thought.
>In my humble opinion, the world would be cast into a contemporary "dark ages" if the individuals leading the way in philosophy and science had no sense of reason. Reason is progression, so perhaps, science and philosophy are intertwined at some level and most certainly, dependant.
I agree. Though my concern is whether the so-called "individuals leading the way" really understand the relationship between reason and humankind. I wish I could agree with you that "reason is progress," though I am not convinced. And it is through my own reason that it has led me to have this doubt. The Challenge the Philosophy competition is a way for others to face my doubt with me, and perhaps I will be enlightened by someone. As of right now through everything I know, I equate reason with our gradual self-destruction. Obviously, I hope I am wrong.
>In my humble opinion, the world would be cast into a contemporary "dark ages" if the individuals leading the way in philosophy and science had no sense of reason.
Perhaps, we are heading out of the empty age of reason into one where we realize the destructiveness of existing through reason, and thereby the destructiveness of existing through all systems of thought.
Best wishes,
Stephen Garvey