Public biased urban philosopher. Should philosophy be only urban (philosophy of the city)?

Abstract

This article is a reflection on the purpose of the modern philosopher deployed in the horizon of the question: Should philosophy only be urban? Communication between the public-biased philosopher and urban philosophy is established by theming the concept of habitat. Analyzing the the habitat concept in the philosophy of M. Heidegger and E. Levinas, the author concludes, that the reduction of dwelling to proximity, kinship, neighborhood, gathering is insufficient. Nor is dwelling is a joint action. While the man lives surrounded by others he needs distance for existence, thinking, writing and memory. Following Ph. Lacoue-Labarthe and J. Derrida, the author claims that passive resistance leads to the deconstruction of the habitat concept by transforming what is internal and external, private and one’s own. He offers to re-think the ethics of the philosophical bias. The public philosopher who dwells in the city and takes care of the common cause, keeping distance from the others, should have the determination to determine himself as “we”. His new form of dwelling and speaking has yet to be established. Refs 14.