Our contemporary society is the lightness, the relief and the anti-gravitational movement that takes us up. In it, here is a figure I have dealt with before: that of the masters and coaches - the Coach and Personal Trainer. Gurus who command what to do, what to read, what to research, what to eat, what to train. For Sloterdijk culture is a system of dressage and in it goes the man. It is also useful to us when we see ourselves in Debord’s “society of spectacle” as a world whose content is the practice, the exercise, the conduct of asceticism stripped of any religious background, we begin to accept the philosophy of Peter Sloterdijk and that he is right in saying that where we look for the man we will only find acrobats. Only those who train, that is, all of us, are human. The man is the one who practices his practice to do better what he has already done. It is not a matter of noticing a certain performative character of human life, but of noticing performance as any content that fills us as human (physical, material, mental and spiritual) with creations of immune-immune systems.
“Nobody has time for an entire generation anymore,” says Sloterdijk in an interview. We will live without interruption. A society of non-interruption. It would take a “stop in time” or the famous epoché of Husserl. Noninterruption requires a form whatever it may be in the form of performance. It all depends on a deep work which, as Sloterdijk says, is the substitution of Hannah Arendt’s contemplative (Cartesian subject-object) life for Hannah Arendt’s active life, but all of it subjected to the real life, the performative life.
Husserl wants to capture the structure of the world’s natural point of view - in its phenomenology. So, either the “phenomenological reduction” or the suspension of beliefs, which in Greek is epoché (sectioning a moment, an epoch, and holding it suspended). It is a matter of putting the whole experience in brackets and describing it by suspending assumptions and assumptions about that experience. It would be like a sort of procedure to get the thing itself. She wants what appears. And it does everything to clear the pre-appearances.
It would be like peeling an onion, removing its layers of impregnation whether it be cultural, semantic or otherwise. For example: a tree. You already see that thing, the tree with the language. It is already “contaminated” with culture because the word tree already brings several ramifications out of the thing and its first appearance. We also have the tree as science presents us. Botany (stem, leaf, roots and etc.) or something in the scope of Ecology. It is these barks that bind that must be cleaned of the object. To seek the “pure phenomenon” even if you cannot. If you try then, pick up the tree like an almost tree - its appear like tree. Sloterdijk works this in the book “Apparent death in thought” just by making a suspension of picking up a period, time or theme and freezing it there to philosophize yes. It was the modern creation of philosophical practice, a vision of the Academy that was the forerunner of this posture that always wanted to create a place of culture, but far from the practice of other places also involved with the most elaborate culture and the discussion about knowledge, such as forums, museums , arenas, parliaments and editorials Epoché, or the “catch an era” or the “put in parentheses” an occurrence, or “circumscribe a period” in order to raise it out of judgment and conclusions; this was a way of doing theory by theory without concern for conclusions or purposes other than the very purpose of continuing to investigate continuously. It would almost take something to a non-place.
I believe your questions may be very interesting, and I believe Sartre would be well regarded in the book Between Four Walls and The Nausea. In the first book one of the characters speaks that they are in hell and that they would be doomed to life without interruption because that would be a punishment and a sacrifice. Hence: “the hell is the others”. The character gradually realized that he had no eyelids and could not blink, because life would be fated without interruption. Blinking and closing the eyes would create an interruption in the permanent where the world disappears even for a short time. It would be a relief even if for a few seconds it disappears and reappears. In the second book we have a hero sitting in the park in front of a tree. He sees its enormous root and realizes that there is a clump of existence, a menacing bulge of existence, which may be black, pasty, knotty, melted, monstrous, slimy, smelly. The “crisis of consciousness” is the breaking of any epoché, for it shows the being of the tree seen as that which erupts in its excess, in its maximum contingency. All that the root shows are aspects of its facade, its attributes, and the root does not allow itself to be captured by its essence. It just exists. It’s there. In its existence the root breaks with the “phenomenological reduction,” since it is seen from various angles and names and impressions without being defined by any separately or by their whole, and then causes the “crisis of consciousness.” The consciousness that is always referential tries to grasp. Contingency causes nausea. It is the fear that each of us does not really have any reason to exist. The being of the tree shows itself. And the Being of the Self shows itself as without reason or justification. The word existence, then, appears as not evoking any abstract category that can explain it, as would be the case in the epoché, and thus existence opens to nothingness. The hero of Sartre tries to explain the root by its size or function or color, but soon discovers that speaking of these attributes is not properly speaking of the root, but of things that do not exist. Note then that essence is a simple idea that hides existence. The feeling of nausea is the product of colors, tastes, smells that, in short, are not real. In addition, nausea becomes explicit when he notes that essence is what people attribute to things exactly to supply a reason for existence. There is no reason for existence, which exists only as an accident. Existence is a gift. At that time, the hero then understands what bothers him, which is nausea. It is the meaning of their existence. You realize how much people do not confront their very existence, but they tend to shy away from it. No one faces your nothingness.
In a further view of pragmatism, I fear that seeing it does not aim at particular results. He has no dogmas or doctrines, save his method. Pragmatism came exactly with this proposal: let’s stop thinking that the world must be made of a substance. It can be accepted as a variable set of relations. Pragmatism is during the most diverse theories as a hallway of a hotel. The hallway has several doors that are bedrooms. In one of them there may be someone writing a book on atheism, the other one may be praying for faith and strength, another may be investigating the human genome, another may be writing about metaphysics. All these rooms open onto the corridor and everyone must necessarily pass the corridor if they wish to have a practical way of getting in and out of their respective rooms. If we take Pragmatism and see that it does not mean how the world should be or talk about metaphysics, but rather to have a practical consequence in the world of putting an end to questions. For example, if I tell my mother I have a headache and she gives me a pill. I take the pill without question, without hesitation and I believe I will be well. Because I believe the remedy will heal me and because I trust my mother would not give me another remedy by mistake. That would be dealing with every day and mundane situations that can generate a kind of solidarity. Or even when the mother says that “everything will be fine” when I am a baby. I feel comforted, less suspicious and less fearful, though there is no guarantee that this promise will be fulfilled. It’s a way for us to stay in the world and have some “control” over contingencies. Belief would be almost something ontological. Would “truth” work as a placebo? No, the truth works. Cannot you experience it? The word truth is important. Really important. If you say, “this will heal me, heal others” and get in return, “it’s true”, do you feel falsely stimulated? Or if you go on a diet hoping that in the future you will be healthier and that diseases can pass you by without harming you. You really can believe it. It is uninhibited, even if the contingencies hit you in the future.