Uniting ethics and aesthetics means dropping out metaphysics. Philosophy as therapy comes not in the idea of solving problems, but discovering their futility. From this comes the picture of ikebana vs. houses of cards. Both constructive and critic philosophies imply understanding and dealing with "issues", building or deconstructing systems.

The whole idea of a unsystematic philosophy may seem preposterous, yet, outside justifications, thoughts still remain — and they may not necessarily imply slothfull or confused attempts. When we talk about excellence, what we mean is actually an aesthetic feature rather than an analytical one. Genius is genius because it marvelous, and actually, this ability of wonderment itself is the mark of genius.

When we discover ourselves both capable of wonderment and willing the sharing of this wonderment, we have just there the seed of genius. This generosity of mind is a feature of each and every of us. If we have a positive view of philosophy, then it itself is this presentation of wonder — and here we may even jump to the red blossoms of spring: making a very long and tortuous concatenation of wonders may not necessarily have the force and brightness of a single simple gesture. It is maybe time to make “sophistication” an idea of wonder and simulacrum rather than a violent machinery of concepts driven by boredom and groans of self-justification and bravata.

The idea that a person studies the complexities of nature and mind and then writes about his well concatenated thoughts about this mass of concepts, trying to present a coherent — and sometimes even supposedly final! — description or prescription of things, is just the particular autism of a class of beings who self-proclaimed themselves “philosophers”. Realizing this there’s actually no need to criticize those even worse “philosophical zombies” who amuse themselves in the intricacies of such diseased past genius and their “wonders”.

Nonetheless, the high realizations of the human spirit may be present even in these, since there’s no waste of possible wonderment even in the boredom of the furthestt recesses of the mind. To write conclusions or present possible faults is child play compared to the arranging of possibilities in a wondrous array.

On the other hand, surfing is not easier on the top of the wave; and what tsunami of consciousness the wonderment of final achievement! Just drop a single flower in the dirty marquise and watch as the sun brightens the missing folded petal in artistless art.

So you thought you could fool us into a priori synthetic truths, but its clear from its results that your ethics ends disconnected with reality. You just needed to put space and time outside the world, in our mind, and not claim to be an idealist! Very funny.

His main problem was to make a concept different from an actual thing. Then to put into concepts things such as space and causality! "Oh, all is but a creation." Pure imagination, nevertheless indifferently present since the begining. And he was able to escape any contra-argumentation by pre-thinking all of them and responding with such condescendence that the problem is not even treated as a problem.

I have thrown away this ladder many aeons ago. Despite that, I still have to know on the tip of my tongue such absurdities as transcendental aesthetics — which I, by the way, buy: thinking of building space and time with concepts. Yes, space and time are much more gross than actual objects: they are things we need in order to understand objects. The mind free from that is beyond our possibilities of understanding since our mind is conditioned by such structural constructs that are the subject of metaphysics. The space left for faith is that it is purely ethical, it is not related to final reasons at all but practical ones.

I think we could compatibilize that with dharma. We should fix some things first: enslaving people into philosophical systems is not ethical. If we create such a big enterprise that many lives will be taken to understand, than that is impropper. Things can be said much more directly, and the fear of refutation only creates prolixity.