It is, from another angle, an attack on requiring proof in philosophy. And it's also the case, I guess, that my temperament is to like interesting, new, bold ideas, and to try and generate them.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments.
The moment you say, 'Please, give me a reason for this', then you are being impossible and temperamental.
It is not impossible to think that the minds of philosophers sometimes act like those of other mortals, and that, having once been determined by diverse circumstances to adopt certain views, they then look for and naturally find reasons to justify these views.
Sometimes, I look out at nature and I think, 'Everything here is obeying my conjecture.' It's a wonderfully narcissistic feeling.
Enthusiasm for a cause sometimes warps judgment.
The arrogance that says analysing the relationship between reasons and causes is more important than writing a philosophy of shyness or sadness or friendship drives me nuts. I can't accept that.
It's a kind of philosophy of my own life, to create the energy enough to keep on going.
It is a mania shared by philosophers of all ages to deny what exists and to explain what does not exist.
Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time.
My temperament is not geared to that of a novelist.