The Philosophical Hack

The Philosophical Hack.

I’m gonna start some notes and things toward another book. Some of you may have noticed that my first book is the first in the series “The Philosophical Hack”.

The idea behind this is a disruption of what we know as philosophy. Now, I don’t mean like ‘I have a philosophy of drinking coffee’ (only cream, quickly poured until it curls up to the top of the brew). Neither philosophy’s ‘of’ anything; what is significant of philosophical considerations is, by my estimation, only questions of truth, and the method of doubt that ends in nothingness. It is this nothingness that concerns us, for obviously, once we have found this nothingness, if it were true — since we are moving upon a true basis attempting to find the truth of it, It seems so ridiculous that it is assumed as it is proposed that it took some 300 years to get to this, our post-post-modern situation. So ridiculous, actually, that it must be presumed upon something that is incorrect in its foundation: And this foundation is what we have called ‘Philosophy’ itself. For obviously, I didn’t dissipate into nothingness once I came upon this nothingness, this, again supposedly, essential truth of truth. Something about philosophy must be incorrect.

In fact, it is downright silly that philosophy as a serious endeavor continues. But in this light it should be noticed that it indeed is continuing, but is doing so upon a certain type of insubstantial base. This is the issue of the point of contention, the significant event, and similar ideas that fall under the rubric of the Philosophical Hack. 

An analogy: computers and computer language, programs and applications.  

One could say that in the past, history had a point, a purpose, a teleology, that proscribed what it was to be, ontologically. And this teleo-ontology was defined by a referent called ‘humanity’, such that all human beings fell under an explanation guided by conflict and wit. This explanation told of a humanity that was dispersed over the globe in groups, and as these groups encountered each other they competed for dominance, whatever type of competition ensued, war or diplomacy. Whoever won, it was assumed all fair game. To be human was to play this game.  

The issue concerns how I might retain my humanity and not participate in this game. I make a hack. 

The game can be said to be integral with discourse, such that there Is nothing outside or beyond the game; philosophy can this be said to justify the game, using its power to justify its play of power.  

So, we might draw this game analogous to a program, an application, or perhaps better, a programming platform. I know very little of actual computer lingos. But I think i know that there is a particular type of language configuration upon which Micosoft works, and another that say Apple uses. So, for our analogy, we might imagine that the history of the world, and the philosophy that has arisen in concert, was Microsoft.  

Now, I am not going into the extended argument and ramifications here; that is part of the Philosophical Hack.  

Here’s what I know of what ‘hack’ means. 
Here is def. 7 from 


a to devise or modify (a computer program), usually skillfully.

b to circumvent security and break into (another’s server, website, or the like) with malicious intent: Skilled criminals hacked the Bank of America’s servers yesterday, jeopardizing thousands of accounts.

I think we all have a pretty good idea of what ‘hacking’ is. (I do not have malicious intent, though)

But also, hack has been commandeered as a meaning in the same way the nerd was commandeered from its insulting meaning. So, a hacker is someone who hacks by performing hacks. A hack in this latter sense is thus a protocol that is not found within the platform that is being hacked. But this is where the analogy ends.

It is important to realize that we are not talking about some new way of conceptualizing reality. Our position is that reality is just reality and it is only in as much as particular conceptions hold sway do we have a total reality in the potential to be communicated. This an be seen as a particularly Marxist conception: ideology is a fantasy, but a fantasy that is enforced through the complicity and want for magical things to occur. This is reality.  

The attachment and want for the categories of such reality thus also develop particular real meaningful reductions.  

(Many will not like the following)

Everything that is real occurs within a ‘platform’. This platform contains all the possibility of things that are real. Given this, the concept of being human likewise occupies a particular conceptual space. But this is not merely ‘knowing’ as we like to segregate objective elements of reality. In short, the discourse of reality is structured in a particular manner to reduce such true-objects to a meaning that supposes to get at, what, returning to our analogy, we could call the ‘machine language’, which, say, from the perspective of the lines of code and the applications derived, means nothing, but merely means, say, “ones and zeros (0011101011101101…)”.

All religious and spiritual ideals stem from the reaction to the situation of coming upon that which the real discourse of reality situates as defines what is the ‘molecules of energy streaming through the microchips’, say. In the end run, in the last analysis, we have the ‘nothingness’ that is proposed as some ‘spiritual source’. Some ‘really real’ nature of reality.

Now, of course, from reality, this reduction is indeed a ‘real real’. But at no time has anyone left the ideological platform. In other words, such spiritual truth is but a real reduction that exposes no actual true truth, but only real truth. Further, such spiritual ideals are needed, as bases from which to enact psychological agency, due to the real ideological investment.  

Thus we posit a hack that is philosophical in nature, that posits no reality greater than reality, that this reality cannot be undone; thus, we move upon a different platform, largely ignoring the reduction to the ideological reductive state. In short, we posit that while I may have to deal with the ideological state, I am no longer philosophically subject to that state, such that the discourse that arises merely exposes those mechanisms by which reality has power; not ideological mechanisms, rather those mechanisms that allows ideology to function powerfully. We enact a basic,and unimpeachable divergence.  
(Yet. One couldvery well say also. Im a philosophical hack because im not a ‘professional’ philosopher ).  


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s