True, anarchy as label is still label, is still obedience, the opposing force to sophy philoing. King's tool. I am naturally drawn to this, my family, or lineage, has long been involved in politics both royal and democratic, politics is the battle over the established base forces of obedience. It makes sense that its opposite, smart, deliberate and sophisticated exploration be used to prop it up. It is philosophical that there is no politics of philosophy, of anti-obedience. Anti-obedience is obedience. This is true of religion, though it digs deeper. I have been close to them for long, too, Machiavelli was smart for being explicit about it.
The reasoning for all this is alchemic or, rather post-alchemic. Alchemy without superstition, basically with a scientific begenning established, is the discipline that can attest: this which smells like this, feels like this. Obedience smells, anti-obedience smells mostly the same but spicier. Meanwhile, the philosopher is off, like Grenouille, basking in so many dances of smells.
So what do you call that will which seeks to modify the banal world which hunted and eventually undid a genius mind like that? Psychopathic? I notice that crazy cult leaders often speak in similar terms as me, their downfall predictably always beeing hanging their lot with the Cross. Or State. Or perhaps simply label. In any case, evolution allows for solutions that don't exist until they do. This will both destructive and constructive wants to exist, therefore it may. Can philosophers act as guiding wizards, helpful advisors to the base when for so long they have been at odds?
Why? (Isn't this the first philosophical question?) Because this only life has been lived many times, and this is our chance to see what else one can do with it. Even the philosopher lone perfume-master depends on the products of base society.
Subject: Anarchism: More on the Philosophy / Obedience Bipolarity 
Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:14 pm