Bala Verde said:That is exactly what I was negating, historical continuum. History is not a natural series of events that neatly line up, but is a series of events constructed (spun like a story, a book of fiction) in a particular order and guided by a particular interpretation, done by historians, and especially historicists. Moreover, they emphasised the dialectic method to resolve 'historical' occurences, explain the continuation as well as breaks/revolutions of certain 'identifiable' periods in time. In their hubris, they feel they are capable of determining a so called evolutionary pathway of, for example, a nation, based on reductionist accounts of occurences that took place in the past, stressing events/artifices/thoughts that support their continuum, and downplaying the contradictions that seemingly distort such stable interpretations.
To illustrate, in the Netherlands, but I suppose in many other European countries, politicians have gone at greath lenghts to stress the greatness of 'THE Enlightenment' mostly in response to a perceived danger from 'backward' arabs. 'We' have Enlightenment, and observe how wonderful it was (often used keywords: democracy, bill of rights, splendor, economic growth, capitalism, wealth, inventions and great ideas), while dismissing the contradictory and simultaneous forces amongst others slavery, colonialism, political violence, exploitation (of white sailors, indentured servants) the emergence of racism as we know it. When we take a closer look at those great minds and their ideas, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, J.S. Mill, Herder, Hegel, Kant, there certainly is darker side. In reality, there was no unison of mind about what 'THE' Enlightenment was, as a matter of fact, many intellectuals were fiercely debating its meaning, and/or how they should go forward into the future (E. Burke comes to mind). To talk about THE Enlightenment, and identifying it as stable, fixed, and obviously positive entity, we are deluding ourselves, and jeopardizing an open argument about who and what we are now.
Not only nationalist ideology, but since we were having a conversation about contemporary Italy, as well as Roman Culture, which were linked together based on a supposed historical continuum, I merely used nationalism to account for this particular association. In this regard, I also fail to identify any 'dialectic' relation. Most post-modern intellectuals (for whatever that might mean) explicitly reject dialectics, since it presupposes the existence of two singularly
I agree and on a lighter note here.: Man's concern for safety is especially prevalent in the US, with their knack for litigation and law suits, and more then hefty damages. Robert Gesink put it nicely after his visit to CA, for the ToC. When they rented a car, he had to 'sign his life away' filling out a stack of paperwork, rental companies disclaimers for damages and liability. He also noticed that even the side mirror had little stickers 'objects may be closer then the actually appear' to anticipate law suits in case of 'misjudgements' while operating the vehicle. On the other hand, the dutch, research suggests, have the most (diverse set of) insurances per capita. They/we are overinsured...
In response to your second comment, that man's not free anymore, I have to disappoint you. IMO, man has never been free at all, and due to the limited space available here, I think it's best to refer to Heidegger who gives away some cues. Some key ideas would be being shackled by 'technologies' as well as 'history' and 'language'. We fool ourselves into believing that we are free, or have liberated ourselves, and again, we base that on historical interpretation that we once belonged to a 'natural state of being', in which we acted like animals, or savages, or were ruled by monarchs and aristocrats. The present is always better then the past, but the future really holds Utopia.
You are more then welcome!![]()
Bala Verde you are out of your mind!! But I truly like you...
Va bene...I think your's is an exercise in Post-Modern mental gymnastics and intellectual hubris, which, in order to be sensational and "ground breaking" finds it necessary to dismiss everything, literally everything that was ever put forth to explain anything, and, consquently, extol the virtues of the contemporary cultural model which tends to negate the very existence of History and therefore time itself. Because to reject that contemporary Italian culture has not been shaped in some significant ways by ancient Roman civilization is either the result of complete idiocy (obviously not in your case) or intellectual hubris (and having too much free time to think up such nonsence).
So instead of referencing your summa philosophes, come down and live in the Boot for a while and just see how pagan the Italians still are to this day. You see sometimes simplicity is a virtue. By contrast, the complexity of your cultural analysis, which is furthermore at total exaggeration, leads to a comprehension of nothing. And this has been the tendency of Post-Modernism to negate everything, literally everything, which hasn't been a product of it's own mental arrogance, and to promote the idea that there has never existed a basis (in the past) for any contemporary state. Whereas society, like the universe, has no reason and is rooted in randomness and caos. But this very concept has been the product of intellectuals living in a post-Enlightenment, post-Nuclear, post Faith, post-Quantum Physics, post-Globalization and post-Everything age, with nothing better to do then to envision cultural models which are completely estranged from the past and which negate that it has ever shaped anything.
I will agree wit you on one thing, though, that man has never been free. I would further add that we only delude ourselves into thinking that our democracies and the Market have made us so. Big Brother is increasingly present and the Middle Ages are just around the corner...