Succeed

Prof Gabriel Rockhill is an American philosopher who I encountered through videos on YouTube. His work concerns the production of academic theory, more specifically, the production of social and political theory, by extremely well funded luminaries in prestigious western universities.

He makes a lot of sense in his critiques (I’ve only ever seen videos of his discussions, I’ve never actually read anything by him). He traces the prominence of these elite radical theorists (whom he calls radical recuperators) to agencies of the intelligence and security complex of the collective west (basically the empire of Washington). He describes how western capitalist hegemony is protected in part through figures and philosophies such as these, which purport to be radically anti-establishment and anti-capitalist. They succeed by subtly manipulating into impotency any threats with real intellectual substance to the established power and order.

From my own experience at college a quarter of a century ago (and probably because the country I’m from isn’t, or at least wasn’t of any great importance to Washington apart from supplying a couple of airports) I can only partially relate to Rockhill’s picture. The philosophy department in my time was a strange mix of conformity to medieval scholasticism, with only the occasional nod of recognition to any historically native philosophy such as that of John Scotus Eriugena and George Berkeley (I don't even think the name of 17th century Irish philosopher, John Toland was mentioned) and an emphasis on phenomenology. If anything, the bent of the political philosophy promoted there was reactionary, even right-libertarian. The only professed leftist in the department was not very imposing, but they did proffer the kind obscure and defeatist theory that Rockhill talks about (actually, they depressed the hell out of me, to the extent that I latched onto Schopenhauer as a lifebuoy for my ‘sanity’!).

Nevertheless, I have no doubts that Rockhill is correct in his analysis. I do think, however, that there is at least one other significant prong to the western ruling class’s influence project- alongside the insemination of elite academic institutions. If these latter could be thought of as a kind of 5-star restaurant franchise, there is also the Burger King variety, namely the proliferation of self-consciously right-wing populist or contrarian media, think-tanks, NGOs, and astroturfed movements ( all of which are increasingly successful in gaining influence and control of the social and political situation in the west).

My interest in this publication has not been primarily political. I'm pretty much disillusioned with politics as such and I have no more desire to impose on or control others than I have to be a celebrity (as in, I once certainly did, but that's a young man's game!) In fact, my general attitude to philosophy is that a couple of lines scribbled down by anyone in an honest engagement with wisdom is infinitely worthier than vast reams of philosophy, academic or popular, if the latter are predicated on an agenda other than just engagement with wisdom- especially if that agenda is to control and manipulate people.

Philosophy proper is about wisdom. It was and should still be a way of life, a beneficial, liberating practice- even if that liberation comes through simply exhausting the analytical part of our mind and so returning us to the original experience.

All philosophy begins from a ground in experience. What seems to be the thrust of the most significant strains of world philosophy involves an activity which proceeds through the analytical, logical mind- adding and subtracting, adding and subtracting, building up conceptual frameworks out of experience, bigger and bigger and ever more encompassing. Until perhaps such a vast and integrated vision is assembled which itself envelops the ground of experience, revealing that ground itself to be an addition (in other words, the assumption, from our point of departure in philosophising is that our own subjective existence is positive or absolute, which can itself be doubted and dissolved into a greater, deeper experience).

That the ultimate end of philosophy in many of these traditions or paradigms has been silence and a return to pure experience, is not I think evidence of failure, but perhaps a symptom of success.