Attracted to him for being the first Vietnamese majored in philosophy I found, I was determined to explore. “What’s behind this small group of young Vietnamese whose interest of gathering every 2 weeks to discuss on ideas of dead people? How are they different from others?”.
But he seems not to talk much, which makes me even more curious
– Who is in your profile pic?
– Chrollo Lucilfer. A bookaholic leader.
– Is he a lone wolf?
-According to Google?
-No, according to my imagination.
In fact, Lucifer is a fictional character, bookworm, calm and charismatic. He is also the leader of a gang and known for staying calm in stressful situation.
“- So you wanna be like him?
-Uhm I like him and perhaps so, apart.
– What type of people are you attracted to?
-You don’t mean sexually?
-I mean in general, just curious. Sorry.”
-Immanuel Kant. Sorry for boring answer.
So this afternoon he decided to resume the conversation with me and in the meantime, I became too intruding that he decided to remain silent, for a while. “Perfect”, I thought. “This is a person with high standards, I just annoyed him.” I like people who hate me or find me annoying (part of it is intentional illusion). And why not? This is a great way to increase pro activity and relevancy in exploring philosophy.
“I will read about Immanuel Kant and get back to you.
I think you will give up.
You are partly right. I am an impulsive person. But I have a way to get myself engaged, through writing. I will get back to you with a blog post”
To be fair, people are motivated by meaning and relevance. When we invest time in studying thoughts and biography of people living hundreds of years ago, the first question I have in mind is “How is this person relevant to today’s world?“, which will boils down to its relevance in our thoughts, actions, and interpretation of the outside world.
How is Kant relevant to today’s world?
(To be continued…)