Ci ho pensato molto di frequente, e gli ultimi attentati (per fortuna sventati) di Londra e Glasgow mi mi ci hanno fatto tornare sopra. Alla laicità, intendo. Ho sempre ritenuto fermamente che ad essa dobbiamo la nostra ricchezza, il nostro progresso, la nostra civiltà, che insomma il nostro (intendendo noi come occidente) benessere sia ad essa intimamente connesso e proporzionale.
Essa, all’inizio di quella che comunemente si chiama “età moderna”, ha coinciso con una concezione di uomo libero, non più inquadrato saldamente in caste statiche, ereditarie, immutabili. Si è svilita la forma e si è iniziato a considerare la sostanza: l’uomo non è caratterizzato in base a chi è ma in base a cosa fa. Perciò ogni uomo deve essere libero almeno aprioristicamente di vivere la propria vita, decidere cosa farne. C’è un punto della costituzione americana (che a dispetto di formule rituali che contiene va indicata come un cardine della modernità laica) che mi ha sempre entusiasmato per la sua acutezza: la libertà basilare di ogni uomo di ricercare la felicità. Il concetto di ricerca della felicità (“the pursuit of happiness”) racchiude già in sé the modern world. Because the research behind that happiness is not a given a priori or acquired nor denied: not born in a condition (state, religion and assorted leviathans) that we take to the grave, but it has the right to change this condition, without which there is no insurmountable obstacle imposed from above. All that has plagued the first man morally and physically, from the classes of the ancien regime to the dictates of moral and hierarchies of the church, they begin to seem unnecessary constraints, of which - and here lies the difference between liberal and Jacobin - not asked death or destruction, but only the freedom of emanciparvisi. I conceive
secularism in this sense: freedom to call out without doing harm to others, imposed by morality, by the dominant religious and ethical constraints. Then elect the individual as such and their rights to basic unit of society, not the faithful, not the employee, not a grain in a shapeless mass, but the individual in and of itself. In this perspective, castes, classes and other superstructures created on purpose to deny freedom of the individual instruments are obsolete scrap. The history with its actions and courses clearly teaches us that progress and welfare are higher in free societies, which give dignity and individual rights, whereas in fact the company totalitarian (whether based on religion and politics does not matter) create pockets of injustice, oppression, slavery and morality are on time for the collapse. Daughters examples that can be invoked in this regard are many: first of the backwardness of the confessional states, which was once the papal state, which are now the majority of Islamic countries: all places where progress is frowned upon and condemned as a heretic , where hunger, illiteracy and caste privileges are widespread.
Another good example is given by religions "political", ie those totalitarian ideas that purport to cancel the individual in an indistinct mass, regardless of its proclaimed fake secularism. The best example here is the Communist ideology that negates the individual, the caste of the ancien regime that replaces the class struggle between them, subject to unit with uniform rights which are inevitably part. There is no room for dissent just because there is no room for individuality, everything is marked by a monolithic coordinated action. In light of these considerations communism could be regarded as a religion rightly, as a result of predetermined utility promises an equally pre-determined way of life. It is here that the stronger you feel the rift between liberalism (which always requires the secularism) and the totalitarian ideologies with claims: ineffective, earthly or otherworldly, is due to the liberal ideology of man as such, but it only has the right to procacciarsela. Echoing the speech is entitled to pursue happiness, not happiness itself.
And as man has always looked for happiness? By labor, industry to earn profits to increase their standard of living. This is just a hint to show that both the ultradestrorsi to claims, because it is maximized the welfare of a society, individual freedoms and economic freedoms go hand in hand.
greetings
0 comments:
Post a Comment