A couple methods that I would like to explore in more depth in my own philosophical activities are the

philosophy as conversation method and the two respective comparative methods. I believe these two
methods could be synthesized in a way as to facilitate a true dialectic between a diversity of
philosophical positions. All too often philosophy is only talking to itself. While the comparative methods
might still be subject to this problematic I believe the philosophy as conversation method could really
serve as useful tool to bridge the gap between the formally philosophical and everyday experiences. The
comparative method is one that I in fact employed in my first philosophy class called Humanities which I
had in my senior year in high school. I believe this method is most necessary in terms of its political
implications. I say this because the current methods of “Identity Politics” have fragmentized and
specialized the Left in comparison to the what I would consider the over-specialization of academia.
While particular groups on the left such as women’s liberation, civil rights, socialists, gay rights and
environmental organizations fight for there own particular ends, they all too often fail to form coalitions
as they instead fight (both internally within organization and externally between different movements)
for the same resources and media attention. I firmly believe that the Left needs to bridge this gap if it
ever hopes to achieve any of its particular goals in a sustainable way. Thus, if I choose to return to
academia my work will most surely focus on making these connections and explicit comparisons
between different social movements and between different philosophies.

I think if there is one method here that most reflects my own philosophical work it would be either
phenomenology or deconstruction. As I already mentioned I think I’ve been doing phenomenology for
some time now, and I believe in the necessity of looking critically and reflectively first and foremost at
one’s own experiences. I believe that the deconstruction and phenomenological method are implicit
within one another. If there was anything I learned in Sociology of knowledge it is the reciprocity by
which our epistemology is created and legitimized by particular subjectivities with particular intentions
(usually power). Only by understanding how one’s own sincere intentions figure into this power struggle
can one begin to determine how to change the system. One cannot do this by simple abstraction for
there is no view from nowhere. The key is to be honest with oneself and one’s intentionality, for it is my
contention that only from within the system may the system ever be altered.