Unwitnessed Resolve: Notes towards the Ethics of Inner Speech

It has proven incredibly difficult to continue to write.

I doubt, at once, the content of my thought as well as my dominion over them. Semiotically, whilst the signifiers appear as clearly as they can be, the signified stays sometimes somewhat but other times perpetually enigmatic. Indeed, this was not the case for many decades. To say that there was a point in time prior to which the threshold of presumptive acceptance was higher would be incorrect as well. Periodically, I doubt the utterances of those around me. Whilst the question of whether they precisely understand the content of their speech remains beyond me, it continues to be the case that I require more time, if not clarity. And partly because, inasmuch as I might think, or want to think, that I’m fond of writing, when it comes to the activity, I find myself conceding to the part of me which is lackadaisical. Indeed, I feel that part of me physically take over the other. He rolls his eyes at me i.e., himself. Every and anything else seems more interesting to him. 

These impediments notwithstanding, I find myself coming back to writing. After all, it has been quite worthwhile. Often times, one feels the need to justify one’s pursuit of philosophy. This admission has taken an inordinate time and for that I feel somewhat ashamed. With reconsideration, this has been but a key barrier to writing as well. As things stand, I’m unable to place this confession anywhere useful. But I digress.

Indeed, whilst I find it arduous to write, I keep coming back to it. As a function of this conflict, a peculiar utility has emerged: the ability to recourse and retreat inwards. This ability seems to have fostered a sense of reliance towards one’s self. Harbour no doubt, this is not, in any shape or form, a resurgence of arrogance but, as I have penned elsewhere, “[the desire to] ensure that the congruence between my speech and this reality remains high”. Inwardly, I feel that the attainment of this goal is critical to my philosophical enterprise. This attainment is predicated, in some part, on the exercise, practice, and refinement of what could be called Ruthless and Caustic Objectivity (henceforth shortened to RCO); this could manifest in expression, thought, and writing. 

Prior to the articulation of RCO, I believe it is useful to strip away the useless: that which it is not. RCO is not neither the act of depreciation nor deprecation. It is, also, not an act of cruelty. Indeed, the ruthlessness inherent is not onto the Kierkegaardian Spirit, but rather against one’s tendency to be incongruent with one’s reality; against the distance between what is and what isn’t. Of parallel significance, it seldom concerns the other. Neither can RCO be made of the other, nor can RCO be made for the other. RCO should remain a possibility without a witness, or perhaps more accurate, be witnessed but by one. However, I would hate to imply that RCO be independent of the other. RCO remains contingent rather implicitly on the historic and contemporary norms and conditions of society. Insofar as RCO requires one to acknowledge the spirit, recognise and situate the self, and maintain its inherent connection to the world, it is delicate.

These negations notwithstanding, the quality of identification and recognition of RCO is inversely linked to the distance between one’s personal emerging intuition and the Kierkegaardian Spirit. Undoubtedly, this would invalidate RCO for nearly most of the people that I know. Not surprising, then, that RCO is, at once, not common and accessible commonly. The practice of RCO is the quieter kin to the assertive and bold. Whilst the latter asserts their belief, the former appreciates one’s parity with the other as well as the coincidence of one’s thrownness. Alternatively, RCO should be able to withstand genuine rational scrutiny, both external as well as internal. This feature does not immunise one’s RCO to the temporal aspects of the human condition. And whilst it is unclear whether RCO remains subject to revision, it contains and exudes some combination of humour, wit, and poetry. The initial source of this particular sentiment is undeniably Marcus Aurelius, his personal handbook, and the ethics of his inner speech. It would only be fitting to consider the examples within the handbook. 

1. Soon you will forget all things and soon all things will forget you

2. No more roundabout discussions of what makes a good man. Be one.

3. How clearly it strikes you that there is no other walk of life so conducive to the exercise of philosophy as this one in which you now find yourself.

Our initial example demonstrates RCO as a commentary on the nature of things, especially their impermanence. Impermanence not merely of one’s thought, position, orientation, or stance, but also the transience nature of the object of our bother and concern. With the next one, whilst the reproach is clear, the context might not be. The statement demands, evidently, that one should drop the unnecessary discussion in favour of the necessary action. This sort of platitude is unmissable on social media these days. However, we must remember that Marcus Aurelius wrote this down following some event or series of event to himself. This was not a reproach inasmuch as it was a decision or at the very least a reminder. This RCO had no witness beyond its author. Likewise, in the final one, Marcus Aurelius tries to reconfigure the despair imbedded within the vicissitudes of the human condition. This reconfiguration, for me, is made, if not possible, then at least easier through one’s exercise of RCO.

The sufficiency of this elucidation remains to be seen. 

---

Bibliography

Aurelius, M. (2006). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published ca. 180 C.E.) https://amzn.to/4lVkkAC

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. (3rd Edition, 2022). London: Routledge. An accessible introduction to the study of signs and meaning-making. Available at: Semiotics: The Basics on Amazon.

Roberts, Peter. “Learning to Live with Doubt.” London Review of Education, 15(2), 2017. A reflective analysis on embracing uncertainty in educational and philosophical contexts. Available at: Learning to Live with Doubt.