The allology and the politically correct incomprehensible
A perfect osmotic combination where the first term indicates the conviction of those who believe they possess knowledge bordering on universality, while the other means taste, propensity, adaptation to our time, to the liturgy of contemporaneity, recalling Zygmunt Baumanof the liquid company.
Everyone talks about everything with the result, very often, of not giving complete meaning to reasoning, discussions and comparisons which, until they develop in private environments or in the joy of sports bars, represent little more than nothing. The essence of the result is different, also because the goal is different, on the occasion of speeches between and with politicians, journalists, magistrates, intellectuals, men of the Church, various humanity that envisages and promises happiness, good, harmony, future. In this case the combination, where it is expressed by these figures, undermines the value and merit of the communication itself, in which excessive simplification is aimed not at informing but at affirming one’s conviction.
Going back to Niklas Luhmann, in effect, we are in the presence of a communication that does not produce other communication, However, it is not important or fundamental; in modernity freedom of thought is welcome even when we are and feel obliged to use it. From an axiological point of view, does information also presuppose understanding? We believe not. The relationship between them is completely asymmetrical, allology and related communication do not involve attention and care for understanding nor even for knowledge.
In recent years the Raiand not only that, starting from the second half of August it will inform us before the chatter relating to Def approved in the spring, then some clarifications, then the presentation of the Nadef at the end of September, and again Dpb to be presented to the EU in mid-October, at the end of October of the presentation to a branch of Parliament of the budget bill which must be approved by the two Chambers by 31 December. Leaving aside the complexity of the process, we only note that the information in its entirety informs daily and, in many respects unnecessarily, of the entire process, in conclusion, for four and a half months. A powerful example of the combination, useful for increasing indifference and anti-politics, where, apart from professionals, information, communication, understanding and knowledge have no citizenship.
An all-things, in the name and on behalf of a non-participatory participation, is not the prerogative only of the small people – beautiful and convincing expression of the Late Middle Ages – eminent figures of considerable popularity are his disciples. The President of the Republic, on 6 October, speaking of the war in Ukraine, he expressed himself verbatim: “If Ukraine fell we would witness a drift of aggression against other countries on the border with Russia and this – as happened in the last century between 1938 and 1939 – would lead to a general and devastating conflict.” We are at a futurist vision of a man of peace, full of concern for a conflict, for coexistence and harmony between peoples, but completely devoid of strategic analysis.
As an aspiration, distant and effectively extraneous to the real geopolitical situation. Let’s try to think in reverse. If Russia, a giant of 17 million square kilometres, 140 million inhabitants and a couple of hundred ethnic groups, fell, that country would certainly not be a place for pilgrimages and the instability of a nuclear power would certainly have repercussions on Russia itself. Europe.
In the document Laudate Deum Bergoglio imposes, among many facile things, as a dogma that: “the human origin of climate change can no longer be doubted”. Yet another involution of Christianity which, in the name of a neo-immanentist eschatology, immerses itself in a politically correct fashionable messianic. Of high rank, but they always remain examples of everything out of place and out of place.
As far as we are concerned, we remain tied and fascinated by one exciting ignorance that accompanies us, which involves and excites the joyful awareness of still knowing, of discovering again, of following a path towards the continuous, unattainable search for the truth. In short, disciples of the Socratic vision of our ignorance, filling it leads us to one of the few sadness in growing old, the uncertainty of time.
These considerations are part of the substratum of liberalism that we care about, distant from modernity filled with nothingness, from everything, from the incomprehensible political correctness. Aware of the danger of all forms of power, Popperianly open to our fallibility, refractory to strictly structured ideologies, constructivism and historicism. We do not believe that states, parties, corporate structures, or any other kind, can be our fundamental interlocutors; instead, the protection of individual freedom and the awareness of the primacy of natural rights are.
We believe we were authentic in this reasoning, pay attention to the reflections of Martin Heidegger, who identified three forms of inauthenticity on Existence: chatter, curiosity and misunderstanding. With the first you don’t even try to project yourself towards the truth, you stop at “it is said” to “that’s what everyone does”in the second we stop at fascination for oneself; with the sum of the first two we obtain the misunderstanding in which there is no information but only untrue truths. With the limit of our capabilities, we worked to avoid them or, at least, to distance ourselves from them.
* director of Free Society
#Tuttology #modernity