I wanted to study psychology or advertising. Had already ruled out journalism, I was not ever that this race would offer something that does not know. Just read but I was determined to be a writer. One day, down the stairs of the Palais des Sports with Dani Pacios, my best friend. He wanted to do pure mathematics, physics perhaps. We decided. He studied science, I letters. "You know what I really like?" He said, almost like a shameful confession, "Philosophy."
I also freak philosophy. The history of philosophy at least. We had COU same teacher and sure it had something to do. But who would study philosophy? What was? What output were you? What meaning could be given to take honors and more than 8 in the selectivity to finish studying for a career that demanded no more than 5? Nobody would dare to something. Nobody would dare to do it alone, I mean. But both if we could, of course. I looked and I said, without further: "With two balls?" and he said "With two balls" and the following five years were history Cantoblanco.
remember a fourth-year course: "History of English thought." As history it was very short because it was Enlightenment and nineteenth century and some of Unamuno, but, for example, Ortega, and not mention the "here and now"-the fact, entirely. The day before, Savater had appeared in an episode of "Friends", speaking of civility and ethics. What a scandal! The temple of wisdom railed against the renegade populist. Appearing on television, in a series for teens! About the limit.
Bringing a little debate. By then, the discussions I participated. Now, I'm too lazy mean, who would Jorge Diaz. I said what I thought, you had to bring philosophy to people who believed in the disclosure and no disclosure fewer people would get to learn what really was taught in schools and yes, we would be very smart and very deep, but nobody knows what we were talking about and why we become misfits.
I put another example, the example that no one dared to mention: "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder. It was a horrible book, but explained things well. An educational book. Incomplete, of course, but educational. In college I hated all the teachers. They scraping by with their salaries and that man becoming a millionaire drawing on their expertise. The teacher stopped me feet: "It's a terrible book, I dread to think that young people learn that by reading philosophy." He was partly right, but insisted: "Okay, I know now that I have studied the race, did not know it, and had it not been for that book, I would probably not registered."
was true. COU influenced and influenced Dani Pacios, of course, but without Jostein Gaarder, with all its flaws, I would have studied philosophy. The book was written in 1991 but hit the petardazo in Spain in 1995, the year in which virtually all the class had dropped out and slowly began to rise hands to give me a reason, and in those condom ads: "I also enrolled for that book, coming to say, is that the novel-or whatever-was poorly written and had a bad story line but contributed As every student of philosophy needs to take the plunge: enthusiasm. Knox
Gaarder or whatever you want to talk about philosophy and its authors with real enthusiasm and affection. Up believing. Maybe it was more or less acute and were more or less successful, but what drove him crazy and we had 18 years and we needed something we are going mad. The cover was yellow and tone, pedantic, but it was our book, who will weigh you weigh. And then yes, "The Phenomenology of Spirit" soup up "The World as Will and Representation," "The foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals" and some passages of the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus."
But at the very beginning, the seed. Without the seed there is no flower. Or cocoon.
