Speaking to a religiously-inclined friend on a live platform I had asked him what he thought about the concept of suspension of judgement. He said he used it for certain things when necessary. I asked him then isn’t that why not use it for all occasions. Have you not taken a course of judgement before you even started? He spent the next five minutes justifying why it is only useful in some situations only.
If one is to make headway in philosophy one must completely commit to all possibilities. In conversations here, I have suspended my judgement about objects of the mind. By inverting the priority, giving mental reality top position I have encountered seemingly unreconcilable problems. To be sure, there are conditions to which must be created to reach this, that is, “prior convictions” must be established. But then we are no longer suspending judgement as such.
We ask to each other to stand in each other’s shoes, yet we cannot, will not and must not remain in them, but return to our own rightful pair. Philosophical schizophrenia it seems cannot be held on to. Locating oneself is something we perhaps should not be afraid to do. Locating oneself however does not equate to locking into one position. The embodied self is still a kind of mobile body.
In short, the metaphors we choose to use may be the limiting factor to our philosophy. And sometimes it is not by choice, for how does one “suspend” a judgement in the first place? What alternatives do we have but to “suspend” judgement if not for this metaphor.