[ad_1]
The alliance that exists between the Mafia and conservative groups is palpable, especially united by an ideology of Christian roots. We don’t stick with it enough, but it seems that declaring oneself a believer, pro-life, etc. — especially in the political sphere — provides a shield or pass for being an unscrupulous asshole. Wendy Brown summed it up well: “I don’t need morals anymore, I just have to say them out loud.” We can think of Trump, but we have our own signatures, like Raul Romero, who embraces a half-naked hostess while supporting the law Return It is moral and traditional in nature. It is all sham, all pretense. Yet the response of insisting on a secular state seems insufficient, because it does not address the core of the problem: the belief in a monopoly of truth that can be imposed.
We still believe in a truth that, for some holy men, may be absolute, revealed or discovered by science or faith. The real danger does not lie in one faith or another, but in its ability to impose itself as dogma at the political level, creating a tyranny of truth. In fact, if public and private were closed, opposed and independent spheres, perhaps the problem would not be so great. However, the boundaries that try to separate them are quite loose and are constantly being redrawn; just remember that for the classics, freedom is played in the public space, not in the private sphere. Today, for example, we see how the morality that is supposed to be shared between humans and non-humans is privatized, while at the same time, differences in public affairs are condemned by the morality that is supposed to be private. It condemns and normalizes in the guise of absolute truth, regardless of consensus or dialogue, thus justifying its imposition.
(frasepzp1)
I have often written about the belief that nature is a reflection of the essence of reality, often even recognized or revealed by “scientific” knowledge. Nature is considered real, with an unchanging essence, opposed to the artifice of culture and its fragile, constructed, contradictory and partial truths. On the other hand, there is also the use of “scientific” truth, therefore “modern”, which is opposed to “nature”, this time in a derogatory sense, closer to the original and therefore transcendent. In this ambiguity, we see again another wavering opposition – nature and culture – that is unsustainable because they are intertwined. It is very difficult to talk about “truth” in a strong sense, at least in a democratic spirit, so it is recommended to say goodbye to it, as Gianni Vattimo did, and to bid it farewell once and for all.
But tell you goodbye The fact is that this does not mean Hello Lies, as many conservatives do. I point to conservatives because their lies and half-truths justify their defense of a truth they consider more important. As Wendy Brown says, “Traditional values become a battle cry.” In that war, they paradoxically reveal that the truth is nothing more than an instrument of power, a weapon used to impose other agendas. Instead of using the space left by the decline of absolute truth (which has caused so much damage in history) to build a common framework for moral and responsible coexistence, they prepared the rifle Bible to fight against something different. It is enough to remember the Bible and the rifle of Ríos Montt to impose a new Guatemala, Ladino, right-wing militarists and Christians.
Democratic truth is different, as Vattimo points out: “Truth is not ‘discovered’, but established through consensus and respect for the freedom of each person and of the different communities that coexist without confusion in a free society”. To build it, science plays an important role, as does religion, not as the final voice of another definitive truth, but as part of a wider and more democratic discussion – we are still far from it today, as many continue to be excluded from the table –. For Vattimo, the farewell to ultimate truth is the beginning and foundation of democracy, not of relativism, which makes a common horizon impossible. Here, truth is not understood by technicians as something objective, neutral or uninteresting, but rather by society as a concept that must dialogue with tradition and science without being subsumed by either of them. Christianity has great potential in promoting peaceful coexistence, as long as it abandons dogmatic practices and adopts a supportive and charitable attitude that values pluralism and avoids exclusion.
[ad_2]
Source link
