the one whose mind goes from rest to idleness no longer needs philosophy (joaquim evinhall, 1856)
ar-rest and un-rest. what do these words mean. both have same origin in the root rest. let us compare the philosophical implications of the origins of their meanings in the common root. to rest.
what does a philosophy of rest look like. there is a clear connection btw philosophy as an intellectual enterprise of all human cultures and rest as a transcultural expression that conveys a certain state of mind or body.
it is to bodies not minds that our scientific culture refers to define rest. when the position of a body with respect to its surroundings does not change with time it is said to be at rest. (wikipedia)
the philosophy of rest begins from the tragic sense rest acquires from its proximity to death. philosophy is life and death contemplated by the mind in terms that can be translated into language and shared with others.
rest is about relativity. it is about a body that does not change its positions relative to its surroundings over time. when the body is definitively put to rest one is dead. life is about bodily movements changing positions.
furthermore the one who is put to rest ceases contemplation. one is de-ceased i.e. goes away. contemplating life and death does not require rest. often it is the thoughts of a mind revolting against rest.
for instance one can engage in philosophy while jogging. the body need not rest for the mind to rest into philosophical inquiry. it is a state of the mind and a resting brain is a mind put to rest. deceased.
our inquiry is about the mind that rests into philosophy. and if it rests into such state it is because it was in a different one before the mind becomes engaged by it.
a mind becoming engaged by rest through philosophy does so by departing from no-rest or little-rest life contexts. in other words philosophy is the doing of a tired man.
a tired man may be in a state of un-rest or ar-rest. both terms report to what rest is not. a philosophy of rest is thus an inquiry into the conditions for the realization of philosophy.
unrested philosophy is thought taken by assault. its impetus is that of a tired man awakened from his deep sleep by the sound of gunshots on the floor below.
uncertain about the morality of all below he cannot rest and thus succumbs to contemplating his uncertain world beneath him.
arrested philosophy is assaulted philosophy. its impetus is that of a tired man awakened from his deep sleep by guards attempting to take him into custody.
uncertain about their reasons, but very certain about their authority this tired man also cannot rest and also succumbs to trying to understand his own moral condition.
unrested philosophy departs from the reality of the shot to understand the different moral reasons that may be drawn out ex hypothesis to conform events to his worldview. it is philosophy without guilt.
arrested philosophy departs from the reality of the guards to understand the different moral reasons that may be drawn out from existing rules they represent. it is guilty philosophy.
in the dialectics of rest only he who is not resting can experience rest. rest is the negation and contradiction of arrest and unrest. they are real. rest is not. it is the result of a negative dialectics in which the tired man becomes not-tired by contradicting the impetus of arrest or unrest.
there is an intuitive association between being rested and being capable of doing more, be it physical or mental activity. this intuition is correct but for the wrong reasons.
doing more is the result of a desire to overcome one’s stock energies. to do more. the rested one is not necessarily more inclined to do more. overcoming is not a privilege of the rested nor are they better in doing so.
for he who rests the most difficult task is to remain resting. rest takes our mind or body by assault providing it with much needed recovery. but that which recovers is covered once again and must resume unrest or arrest. as practice rest is alway provisory. as philosophy it must become permanence.