If I Only Did What

The Only Attitude (the Only Politics--judicial, Medical, Pedagogical And So Forth) I Would Absolutely Condemn Is One Which, Directly Or Indirectly, Cuts Off The Possibility Of An Essentially Interminable Questioning, That Is, An Effective And Thus Transforming Questioning.

But Can One Not Conceive Of A Presence, And Of A Presence To Itself Of The Subject Before Speech Or Signs, A Presence To Itself Of The Subject In A Silent And Intuitive Consciousness? Such A Question Therefore Presupposes That, Prior To The Sign, And Outside It, Excluding Any Trace And Any Différance, Something Like Consciousness Is Possible.

These Critics Organize And Practice In My Case A Sort Of Obsessive Personality Cult Which Philosophers Should Know How To Question And Above All, To Moderate.

If You Read Philosophical Texts Of The Tradition, You'll Notice They Almost Never Said 'i,' And Didn't Speak In The First Person. From Aristotle To Heidegger, They Try To Consider Their Own Lives As Something Marginal Or Accidental. What Was Essential Was Their Teaching And Their Thinking. Biography Is Something Empirical And Outside, And Is Considered An Accident That Isn't Necessarily Or Essentially Linked To The Philosophical Activity Or System.

I Say Things That Contradict Each Other, That Are In Real Tension With Each Other, That Compose Me, That Make Me Live, And That Will Make Me Die.