By Gregorio Baremblitt
An interesting characteristic of our era is the decline of critical thought and expression. I am not referring to the demonstrations with this criticism of the press listening, writing and television. Nor did I allude to the so called critical school here in Frankfurt.
I am referring to criticism (even the so-called "constructive") that a stream of philosophy, science and arts can do another. Moreover, I point out also a genuinely radical critique that can be done on the current state of civilization in which we have played live. In it, the "progress" technological and human rights abstractly formulated, is an admirable development. On the other hand, the practical application of that productive growth and a realization that lawmaking is so small that the result is ridiculous.
Just as an example: if a country is solemnly discusses "x", which in the opinion of the countries "y" is not reliable (although acting with a political regime as "formally" democratic as are most of the global systems in force) can or not have nuclear weapons. In fact, countries that already have them are not any more reliable than the "candidate" for that weapon.
The background of this discussion is not "who should" but who "can". This limit is universal disarmament, or not. The rest is
game of "traffic protection" or "traffic extortion."
The argument can always be a "madman" who pushes the button "is a sophism. A civilization that has this kind of "button" is not to defend themselves from mad, but the "sane".
I am referring to criticism (even the so-called "constructive") that a stream of philosophy, science and arts can do another. Moreover, I point out also a genuinely radical critique that can be done on the current state of civilization in which we have played live. In it, the "progress" technological and human rights abstractly formulated, is an admirable development. On the other hand, the practical application of that productive growth and a realization that lawmaking is so small that the result is ridiculous.
Just as an example: if a country is solemnly discusses "x", which in the opinion of the countries "y" is not reliable (although acting with a political regime as "formally" democratic as are most of the global systems in force) can or not have nuclear weapons. In fact, countries that already have them are not any more reliable than the "candidate" for that weapon.
The background of this discussion is not "who should" but who "can". This limit is universal disarmament, or not. The rest is
game of "traffic protection" or "traffic extortion."
The argument can always be a "madman" who pushes the button "is a sophism. A civilization that has this kind of "button" is not to defend themselves from mad, but the "sane".
0 comments:
Post a Comment