[What follows are short excerpts from the journals of Tyeru Hedee, written while on an early extrasolar colonization mission. These journals, along with fiction and philosophy written by Hedee, later became the founding sources for the Gossamer school of philosophy.]
Imagine a fleet of starships with a shared destination: they come in many varieties, shapes, sizes, and situational usefulness. Some might be small passengers ships, others large cruisers, some might be slow or fast, some might be warships or medical ships or tourist ships or any vast number of hybrids. But each has the same two fundamental properties: they fly, and they are all flying to the same place. Any good philosophy is like this. Like flight, philosophy is simultaneously going and doing : both it’s function and it’s form are an action. The end of a flight is the destination; the death of the philosopher is how a good philosophy ends. Thus, philosophy is bipartite. Philosophy is a process of leading a flourishing life, directed toward ending with the death of its practitioner (but, as a starship might malfunction or be attacked and thus it’s flight ended prematurely, so might a philosophy). And like different starships with different uses, different philosophies will be useful to different people or in different contexts. This is what my philosophy does. It offers a way of living for some potential person in some potential context. It has given me a way of living. I “want no disciples, but people who are themselves”. I want my philosophy to be a way for a person to be his or her own self.
…
At some point, my starship analogy breaks down: philosophies, good philosophies, are not nearly as hardy or impenetrable as starships. Philosophy flies on gossamer wings; its own force of flight has the power to crumble its wings, to make itself pathetically flightless. This happens most frequently in the philosopher’s drive for scientific clarity. When the philosopher first realizes that philosophy as a way of existing in the universe cannot offer clarity and objective truth in the same way science can, she becomes ashamed of her devotion to the field. She turns to analytics, she devotes herself to the idea of rigorous logic. She does not go beyond these sorts of thoughts. She is embarrassed by what philosophy is, and becomes self-conscious when science says “I can show this objectively!” And so she attempts to show how the world is objectively. She twists the force of philosophy awkwardly and uselessly, and its wings crumble. Philosophy that offers observations or claims about the world without also offering a way of living in the world is failed. It is very clever and often very smart thinkers who go about philosophy in this way, but it is bad philosophy. It pushes too hard for clarity, and in doing so crushes philosophy’s ability to fly and fly toward something. “It is absurd to die for something which is proven”—for something proven doesn’t need me, will still be proven before or after my death. Thus I make my claim to life without scientific clarity or proof; thus my philosophy may be worthy of death.
…
Never has the need for philosophy been more urgent to me. I am coursing on a linear path through the stars, and have a few hundred years of life ahead of me. Each meter this ship travels is another short moment of my life which has passed; my dying and the ship’s movement map directly onto one another. In the quarters below me are hundreds of passengers alive in stasis, each with an important function to perform when they land on the planet to be colonized. And so, the question has come to me with powerful urgency: how do I live? How do I live well for the remainder of what I have, how do I lead a good life as the sole conscious person for its remainder, whose only duty is to maintain the ship’s course and performance?