This storm also has affected us to write and sit here thinking over and over how we should type these words with the correct and confident formulation that we're slowly losing.
It is, funny enough, in exactly this inner battle that I have found a reason to finally write something down. Ambiguity is something that always fascinated me to be honest. It forms the bridge from extremes to a golden middle of grey and nuance. This transcends the black and white thinking and reminds me again why we are so brilliant. It shows that we actually are capable of deep thought to a very far away extend. One which gives the sudden realization that there is something beyond good and evil. This awkward piece of writing has a reason. As a means to turn this inner battle into a manifestation that can be turned outwards and thus also be presented to the outer world with the aim to reflect on it.
Why is it that I am doubting myself so much?
It is difficult to type away, to fill pages and be meaningful. Aren't essays always supposed to be long? Because it seems that complexity, depth and validity have become synonyms in the philosophical atmosphere. Not that I can blame them of course, since I myself have admitted in a few pages earlier that it is more than necessary for me to convey my thoughts to the outer world and still preserve the intention and the depth that the words carry with them. Thus it is necessary to be clear. Clearness can only be understood in terms of either an Aha-Erlebnis (insight) or a pages of paper that exhibit the long syllogisms the writer went through in an internal battle with the self to finally come to that self-evident insight.
And perhaps it is in exactly that in which I am experiencing the inner struggle. That I want both and neither. By both and neither, I mean that I appreciate either aspects, but neither in overall.
I despise the shallowness of short philosophies. One-Liner Philosophies as I like to call them. You can often find them on social media with the picture of a punk-philosopher like Nietzsche or Sartre put by some rebel teenager to express his or her individuality. It consists out of one line that joyfully kicks against the system, such as ''God is dead'' or ''The hell is the Other''.
I must admit, it does annoy me, even though I try to ignore it.
Tbe One-Liner Philosophies used by many, not only now, but by anyone with a superiority complex, as a means to overshadow their insecurities, can be quite helpful though.
If used properly, it can be used to emphasis a certain thought that is the main point of your stream of consciousness. If that's not the case, it can also be used to summarize in a few words the whole point of your story. This gives the reader clarification and the writer a reference point when he or she has to defend or explain his or her thesis.
Another form of writing is the overly long complex writing that serves no other purpose than to convey something easy as difficult as possible to create depth where there is little.
Depth in thought is indeed very difficult to achieve. It is quite frustrating, I know from experience and sometimes even heartbreaking, when you have the feeling that words no longer have the power to carry your emotions and thoughts to the other with all the associations you have when using those words.
This becomes even more complex when it's written text and all the emotions have to come from cold blocky letters printed against a white background.
So what you then do to convey your words is to repeat yourself. If that doesn't help, you resort to going way too deep into the topic, to the point where you've completely digressed from the original topic. This too is quite understandable, but a pain to read. Mind numbing even.
However, it is necessary to be nuanced. It is true that often people resort to this type of writing, because they have to convey long thoughts concerning topics that do need all the pages filled in order for the reader to understand it. That's however not what I'm talking about. Those books who do that don't outdo themselves. Those pages are necessary, because if you took pieces out of it, it would stop making sense or lose it's literary touch that differentiates the writers from other writers. The latter is of course a subjective insight that I can't go into depth to right now, because I want to keep the focus on the battle I'm experiencing.
For the sake of practicality, let's say that when you can leave it out, it's unnecessary to write it down.
So between these two extremes, where should I place myself?
Does my problem even posit itself in this question or should I be asking myself a whole other question all together?
The words that I can associate with my restlessness are the following:
Unease, impatience and depth.
And immediately we can behold the problem. The eternal problem of contradiction that will probably follow me into the grave. Wanting two things that seem to essentially exclude each other.
Depth and impatience that is, which consequently concludes to uneasiness.
