The introduction to the book by Sergio Belardinelli, The other Enlightenment. Politics, religion and the civil service of truth just published by Rubbettino.
.
After a long hibernation, due to the widespread belief that religion, at least in the West, it was finally withdrawn in very little relevant private individual, the Islamic terrorism as we have awakened with a start and problem of the public dimension of religion has become one of the hottest contemporary cultural debate. Whether you talk about fundamentalism or European identity, of a secular state or bioethics, the latter is still controversial relationship between politics and religion that is. And although some signs suggesting the contrary, we must necessarily expect that taking advantage of this new awareness that politics is religion. .
The stakes are very high. It is ultimately to counter that sort of "trend to the extreme," which begins to occur on a global scale and that the religiously motivated terrorist violence is only one of various events. And if it is true that the Christian West and the Liberal developed certainly the antibodies that make it immune against the risk that religion can become an instrument of domination and terror, it is equally true that it does not feel the same clarity with the risks that would result from his disenchantment individualistic, the reduction of all backgrounds realm of consciousness and sense of individual autonomy. It happens so that the "dialectic of recognition" becomes increasingly difficult. In its place there is the resentment, selfishness, indifference and fear. "The man himself would say-not-René Girard can triumph over himself."
The stakes are very high. It is ultimately to counter that sort of "trend to the extreme," which begins to occur on a global scale and that the religiously motivated terrorist violence is only one of various events. And if it is true that the Christian West and the Liberal developed certainly the antibodies that make it immune against the risk that religion can become an instrument of domination and terror, it is equally true that it does not feel the same clarity with the risks that would result from his disenchantment individualistic, the reduction of all backgrounds realm of consciousness and sense of individual autonomy. It happens so that the "dialectic of recognition" becomes increasingly difficult. In its place there is the resentment, selfishness, indifference and fear. "The man himself would say-not-René Girard can triumph over himself."
.
It would take just a God "Now only God can save us," said Heidegger. But the God of Jesus Christ does not lend itself too easily be manipulated. It is the main condition that made possible the emergence in the West dell'irripetibile uniqueness of each person, but does not let you decline this uniqueness in terms of modern individualism, enhances the desire for happiness in the heart of every man but to those who do good, at least on this earth, promises the cross sees politics as the art more noble to serve the "common good", but on political power (also on the church) sees the lurking "beast" that rises from the depths; assigned as a right to live according to the usages and customs of their community, but to those who acted as a fetish of the identity of this or that culture (including Western) said that, after Christ, can be only the identity of the human family, as for those who would like resacralisation the world, they are reminded that Christ still use strong words of René Girard, "defeated revealing sacred violence."
It would take just a God "Now only God can save us," said Heidegger. But the God of Jesus Christ does not lend itself too easily be manipulated. It is the main condition that made possible the emergence in the West dell'irripetibile uniqueness of each person, but does not let you decline this uniqueness in terms of modern individualism, enhances the desire for happiness in the heart of every man but to those who do good, at least on this earth, promises the cross sees politics as the art more noble to serve the "common good", but on political power (also on the church) sees the lurking "beast" that rises from the depths; assigned as a right to live according to the usages and customs of their community, but to those who acted as a fetish of the identity of this or that culture (including Western) said that, after Christ, can be only the identity of the human family, as for those who would like resacralisation the world, they are reminded that Christ still use strong words of René Girard, "defeated revealing sacred violence." E 'therefore a problematic relationship, difficult conflict between the Christian religion and politics. This is from the beginning, when the Zealots interpret the message of Jesus as a revolutionary message against the occupation of Rome in the territories of Israel, occupation instead watched with indifference by the Sadducees. It becomes even more so with the Constantinian shift, whose blend of Christianity and political power will persist until the Middle Ages, even assuming real theocratic forms. And that remains even today, after the modern secularization has seen a sort of vindication of the policy on religion, which many would go so far as to deprive the public of any size.
.
About the relationship between Christianity and modern political culture, there are basically two ways to interpret it. The first is so-called radical or secular, with Anglo-Saxon language, secularists, who, in agreement with some curious traditionalist Catholics consider the policy in clear contrast to the modern Christian tradition. The second is instead between those who see Christianity and modern political culture a simple continuity, especially in what modern politics has emphasized in terms of freedom, democracy, rule of law etc.. As Martin wrote Rohnheimer, "both positions are partly true and partly incorrect. The first is characterized by a remarkable historical myopia that tends to deny not only the Christian roots of Western European civilization, but also Christianity as the principal and decisive factor of progress and civilization. The second seems somewhat naive and even insincere, in that it denies some inherent conflict between Christianity and the footprint of secular modernity. " However, according to Rohnheimer, it is important to stress that this second interpretation is certainly closer to the truth of things than it first.
About the relationship between Christianity and modern political culture, there are basically two ways to interpret it. The first is so-called radical or secular, with Anglo-Saxon language, secularists, who, in agreement with some curious traditionalist Catholics consider the policy in clear contrast to the modern Christian tradition. The second is instead between those who see Christianity and modern political culture a simple continuity, especially in what modern politics has emphasized in terms of freedom, democracy, rule of law etc.. As Martin wrote Rohnheimer, "both positions are partly true and partly incorrect. The first is characterized by a remarkable historical myopia that tends to deny not only the Christian roots of Western European civilization, but also Christianity as the principal and decisive factor of progress and civilization. The second seems somewhat naive and even insincere, in that it denies some inherent conflict between Christianity and the footprint of secular modernity. " However, according to Rohnheimer, it is important to stress that this second interpretation is certainly closer to the truth of things than it first.
.
For the reasons some of which I have already mentioned, there is certainly a sort of irreducible tension between Christianity and politics. The Christian is in the world without being of the world, and this tension exists in every age, so even in modern times. But not for this we are forced to decline in a modern secular anti-Christian and anti-modern Christianity so. Christianity is not reducible to politics, the policy indicates some "limits", of course. But this is precisely its most important contribution to a policy that should be truly liberal and democratic, without falling into clericalism, either in Secularism, two temptations lurking. It is precisely these "limits"-for example, the inviolable dignity of every person, the rights to life and freedom that we carry with us by birth, not for political concessions, to be the largest bank to possible misuses "autarkic" or worse even "totalitarian."
For the reasons some of which I have already mentioned, there is certainly a sort of irreducible tension between Christianity and politics. The Christian is in the world without being of the world, and this tension exists in every age, so even in modern times. But not for this we are forced to decline in a modern secular anti-Christian and anti-modern Christianity so. Christianity is not reducible to politics, the policy indicates some "limits", of course. But this is precisely its most important contribution to a policy that should be truly liberal and democratic, without falling into clericalism, either in Secularism, two temptations lurking. It is precisely these "limits"-for example, the inviolable dignity of every person, the rights to life and freedom that we carry with us by birth, not for political concessions, to be the largest bank to possible misuses "autarkic" or worse even "totalitarian." Something similar can be said for the idea of \u200b\u200btruth. I am well aware that this idea is much discredited and it enter the title of a book on politics and religion can seem even provocative, given that the democratic public space is characterized mainly by a plurality of positions in the field and a sort of waiver of prior (and sacred) to take decisions on behalf of the truth. E 'is true, however, than just the Enlightenment, from which they have taken shape our institutions and our liberal culture, living mainly in the pathos of truth and that, as indeed had sensed Friedrich Nietzsche if this is less pathos, is likely to be even less enlightenment.
.
For the fact of living in a socio-cultural context marked by the presence of different opinions in regard to what is true and right and then take our political decisions by majority vote, we mistakenly believe that the review is worth ' other, we become relativists, believing that this was the best way to be tolerant. Far from representing a cage for the autonomy and the freedom of individuals, just the truth can help us to give proper meaning to our choices and the democratic process itself. Our policy decisions, for example, by a majority, not because the truth does not exist, but simply because, thanks to a certain idea we have of man and his immeasurable dignity, it is much better than a wrong decision taken with the consent of the majority that a decision right imposed by force. Other than relativism. It 's almost be sickening to discuss everything, even matters of life and death, without the confidence that there are other valid arguments more valid because more-closer to the reality of things, not because a shared by more people or because they "believed" on the basis of any faith. And I think that it is precisely this lack confidence in the truth of the case "before", though not very "close", most of the problems that affect our culture and our political institutions.
For the fact of living in a socio-cultural context marked by the presence of different opinions in regard to what is true and right and then take our political decisions by majority vote, we mistakenly believe that the review is worth ' other, we become relativists, believing that this was the best way to be tolerant. Far from representing a cage for the autonomy and the freedom of individuals, just the truth can help us to give proper meaning to our choices and the democratic process itself. Our policy decisions, for example, by a majority, not because the truth does not exist, but simply because, thanks to a certain idea we have of man and his immeasurable dignity, it is much better than a wrong decision taken with the consent of the majority that a decision right imposed by force. Other than relativism. It 's almost be sickening to discuss everything, even matters of life and death, without the confidence that there are other valid arguments more valid because more-closer to the reality of things, not because a shared by more people or because they "believed" on the basis of any faith. And I think that it is precisely this lack confidence in the truth of the case "before", though not very "close", most of the problems that affect our culture and our political institutions.
.
What I mean is that, far from constituting the foundation of a liberal culture and democratic relativism constitutes the disease, the antechamber of the most radical functionalism. When we say any truth, from the simplest ones, like "snow is white", to more complex ones, like "Luigi is a true friend," we do not do with the mental reservation that what we say may not be true or that it is true simply because we are convinced. Rather we believe it is true, precisely because we see that snow is white and that Louis is a true friend. Without this confidence in a truth that ultimately is revealed to us, which we are not masters, we can accept or not accept, but which is otherwise unavailable, even our politicians have great values \u200b\u200bconsistency. Pluralism, tolerance, majority principle, the idea of \u200b\u200brule of law would end inevitably be confused with the demagoguery and the struggle for power's sake. Thanks to the truth, however, the public debate is forced to keep alive as an instance of objectivity and unavailable, which I consider valuable, especially in front of the risk of confusing pluralism and relativism, rights and desires, tolerance and indifference, and that the much-vaunted dialogue between cultures is transformed into a kind of abstract ritual, where everyone has the same reasons , as he would like the ideology of multiculturalism.
What I mean is that, far from constituting the foundation of a liberal culture and democratic relativism constitutes the disease, the antechamber of the most radical functionalism. When we say any truth, from the simplest ones, like "snow is white", to more complex ones, like "Luigi is a true friend," we do not do with the mental reservation that what we say may not be true or that it is true simply because we are convinced. Rather we believe it is true, precisely because we see that snow is white and that Louis is a true friend. Without this confidence in a truth that ultimately is revealed to us, which we are not masters, we can accept or not accept, but which is otherwise unavailable, even our politicians have great values \u200b\u200bconsistency. Pluralism, tolerance, majority principle, the idea of \u200b\u200brule of law would end inevitably be confused with the demagoguery and the struggle for power's sake. Thanks to the truth, however, the public debate is forced to keep alive as an instance of objectivity and unavailable, which I consider valuable, especially in front of the risk of confusing pluralism and relativism, rights and desires, tolerance and indifference, and that the much-vaunted dialogue between cultures is transformed into a kind of abstract ritual, where everyone has the same reasons , as he would like the ideology of multiculturalism. .
A common enough that actually wants to spread our western world has now started on the road to multicultural relativism, the belief that this is the only way to meet the challenges of globalization and the comparison with other cultures, without giving in to fanaticism and violence. This is a very serious error, which, in addition to damage us in the West, will damage the "other", fueling their bigotry that we would like to avoid. It is not letting "anyone" who favors the encounter and dialogue between different cultures, and often hostile. But the error may be explained, if we think the fatigue from which we got caught. Words such as reason, truth, justice, human dignity, which also form the basis of our culture, even politics, have become gradually almost unspeakable in its universal dimension. And meanwhile we have to deal with terrorism jahada, war, biopolitics, matters of life and death, the great migrations, the great crisis Economic and much more-all issues that certainly can not be tackled while remaining within that sort of aura weak that crushes us now like a boulder. Hope that drives this book is that it is these challenges are forcing us to seek other avenues to look around, but above all to look inside, to make clear to ourselves and to others, what we are and what we want.
A common enough that actually wants to spread our western world has now started on the road to multicultural relativism, the belief that this is the only way to meet the challenges of globalization and the comparison with other cultures, without giving in to fanaticism and violence. This is a very serious error, which, in addition to damage us in the West, will damage the "other", fueling their bigotry that we would like to avoid. It is not letting "anyone" who favors the encounter and dialogue between different cultures, and often hostile. But the error may be explained, if we think the fatigue from which we got caught. Words such as reason, truth, justice, human dignity, which also form the basis of our culture, even politics, have become gradually almost unspeakable in its universal dimension. And meanwhile we have to deal with terrorism jahada, war, biopolitics, matters of life and death, the great migrations, the great crisis Economic and much more-all issues that certainly can not be tackled while remaining within that sort of aura weak that crushes us now like a boulder. Hope that drives this book is that it is these challenges are forcing us to seek other avenues to look around, but above all to look inside, to make clear to ourselves and to others, what we are and what we want.
0 comments:
Post a Comment