The Rubinshteinic Philosophy on Mystery

The Rubinshteinic Philosophy on Mystery

(I'm Mysterious)

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory)

One of the things that keeps us intrigued by something or someone is the air of mystery that surrounds them. The fact that we may not know something can be fascinating, because there is something quite exciting about being left in the dark, even though we may be tempted to know more.

However, in philosophy, it is preferrable to be an armchair philosopher and not a wise-guy. The armchair philosopher master has no affiliation to anyone, thus they are not inhibited by the affiliation bias. That is while the wise-guy may inquire too much, in the form of a journalist, or in the form of Socrates.

Socrates criticized society too much, thus he risked his life to the point of being imprisoned by the Athenian government.

In this world, where people are slowly growing more isolated and less social, it really is best to be mysterious and just keep to yourselves. To blend in without risking yourselves unnecessarily. To lurk in the dark, per se, and to hide in plain sight, and to avoid battles with others.

You expose yourself too much, you open yourself to be vulnerable with people that might be untrustworthy. In same cases vulnerability is strength, however it is often a matter of luck as well.

Deliberate ignorance is the conscious choice to not know something, for whatever reason. Recognizing this term is imperative to understand this article, and philosophy in general. Do we really have to know everything? Or specifically, should we know everything there is to know? No. No we don't.

What we get in return for mystery can be hope. Hope that one day, we may know. Sometimes, we may never know how or why, and the answers will forever stay in the dark. I have such a mystery from a certain story that has remained unclear for 20 years. There is something attractive about not knowing forever, what are the causes for some effects.

So, I think we can rest assured that some of us desire mystery for the intrigue that it may make us feel. Wouldn't you say it exists in romance, as well? The secrets of the other person, not knowing completely who they are, exactly the person we are attracted to? Their past, their heart and mind? It might be especially true nowadays, where we may use the internet to communicate, not fully knowing who is the person on the other side of the screen.

Now, the philosopher has little to no desire to remain in deliberate ignorance. Even if the aura of mystery leaves them fascinated, they will sacrifice that feeling in favor of knowledge. For the philosopher dares to know.

They dare to exit the Platonic cave, even if the outside world will be very disappointing. Reality often crushes fantasy, remorselessly. Reality disappoints, and shows us the true nature of the things and beings we once believed to be greater than they actually were. In true love, the love sides with the truth, not with some fantasy.

There is something ruining in the philosopher's experience. They don't seek "magic", they do not seek naivety. They seek reality, as in reality, lies the truth. And no matter what the truth is, they seek it, and only it, in their endeavor for wisdom. That's why philosophers, in relationships, are wild-cards, because the true philosopher will tell you the rational truth like a butcher would casually serve you meat.

The regularity of philosophers telling you the truth in your face makes them eccentric by default and make you question how in the world can these sages have so much profound research on reality.

Being mysterious holders of profound knowledge, they may appear as hackers or sorcerers. Therefore, philosophers are mysterious by default. Yet, moral-based philosophers like myself choose to be self-restrained by virtue and by self-devised codes of ethics as in the case of Nietzsche's Overman idea.

They may overwhelm others with the truth, as well. Sometimes, to the point of trauma. It is therefore the social-ethical role of philosophers to spare much of this world of themselves. That's because being a philosopher is already a social risk.

The non-philosopher may have a smaller capacity for it, for honesty. That's because honesty can easily offend the other party, and this world is very much a sensitive place to live in, hence why trigger warnings exist.

The philosopher, on the other hand, probably has the biggest capacity for it, than anyone else. For philosophy is the study and pursuit of the truth.

And while the lady who smokes mysteriously may be fascinating to many, along with any other visual data, the philosopher looks at them deep in the eye, and overcomes the alluring barrier of mystery, should it be an obstacle.

Many people seek to feel, to experience emotion. The philosopher seeks to understand reality beyond said experience. Impression might not commonly be a good indication of reality, no matter how good or charming it would make you feel. Because if you are a true philosopher, you will shove aside even the obstacles that make you feel good and charmed.

And thus, the pursuit of philosophy is like the loss of humanity within you. Not of compassion, necessarily, but of enticement. Of the joy of experience, be it good or bad. It is almost... like becoming an undead. It may feel almost like a point of no return, should you, like me, desire nothing more in this reality, but philosophizing. And that is why the philosopher is the lover of wisdom, for they put their pursuit as superior, if not, above all.

You might realize that this is one of the reasons as to why philosophy isn't as relevant as other fields of life, at least it is how it might be largely perceived... It seeks rationality above emotion, all because emotion may be the inferior indication to reality. Compared to the rationale, that aims to understand, while it destroys fascination in its wake. That might as well be the trade-off of the rational man or woman: The reality of the sun outside Plato's cave, and not the entertaining shadows of the bonfire, within his cave.

Prepare to be disappointed. Prepare to be upset. Disillusionment, especially of mystery, may do that to those who give up illusion.

And this is exactly why I do not like fiction as much anymore, even though it used to entertain me a lot. I no longer desire to escape to fantasies.

Even though I believe we can learn from fiction, it is a poor substitute of reality, which means that the more-human, "ordinary" reality should be preferable to any honest philosopher, if such philosophers seek to communicate their ideas better.