positions that we like to defend, by force of argument, and we would like to see done, are known. Let me now, thinking about a more general level, to identify three attitudes or three provisions (leggetene, then call them what you will) that correspond to three fatal impediment to any discussion, any dialogue, any possibility of change. Apart from the fact that you defend positions similar to ours or not, I hope that you realize that is not good to anyone (except to those who intentionally uses it, spreading them to defend their privileges) and you will agree with the label "Three poisons". It is unfortunately very common poisons.
First venom: "Are all words"
This attitude goes well with laziness and is found generally in people who feel insecure with their knowledge, skills, or dialectic, or been disappointed by promises betrayed ( it is frequently found in the voters of Berlusconi, and it is a symptom which can be identified despite the reluctance force in Italy since the previous vote. But in a little 'things confusing).
is the distrust of discussion and communication. When you feel even a little 'thinking of others in the correctness of the bubble is now a product Minutes so well made, but for this to be regarded with suspicion or as ineffective, "are all words," indeed.
Oh no. Words, we know, we are the most inflated. But they are also all we have, because our reason is discursive (I will not embark on any big philosophical thesis, but have you ever noticed that animals do not discuss?). Words are made so the Mein Kampf and Red Book as the Divine Comedy and Constitution. Words are not only what we hear, but what we think. And then we do. We must not forget this direct relationship. Who wants or words of warning switch to other media or despises the only constructive and analytical tool that we have many issues (especially ethical). Who despise because they fear verbal deception actually despises its name and is unsure of himself. Who will surrender to the lungs to breathe for fear of something smelly or even toxic?
According poison Ignorance property
use of reason does not know not only those who reject the use but also those who can not substantiate. Many know how to defend their positions by arguing not so much as doing a poor use of words. Or using them on the basis of steps taken for granted, easy equations slogans. On those you testify and there is nothing that they grade, even if "move" means to lead a defense down in the space of reasons and look up definitions, and support a thesis. Repeated at most change the order of terms, with sad and inane ars combinatorial .
Three examples. (1) It goes without someone tell me that homosexuality is "against nature", if you do not tell me what "kind" means. [NB: seems easy!] (2) Needless to declare someone a "liberal" if it has no corresponding concept of "freedom", or something that is not just an instinctive appreciation for the word "freedom", which of course, "sounds good" (Such as "democracy" in fact there always is quick to make us the names of any party). [NB: seems easy!] (3) Needless to state that someone is "Catholic" if they do not tell me the dogmas in which, by definition, a Catholic is to believe (and that differentiate it from a Protestant, for example, or a Orthodox). As the Immaculate Conception. Or employment. [NB: seems easy!]
And so on.
poison Third: The game
Pollyanna Pollyanna will not have forgotten, sugar protagonist of many a book and, above all, of a Disney family film. She, to whom or to whose knowledge captain misfortunes more or less serious, he always found a way to console himself, thinking the worst that could happen and that had not occurred. Wishing to receive such a doll in the mail and getting the other hand, for an exchange, a pair of crutches, he consoled himself for the disappointment, the girl may think we did not need those crutches. This way of seeing things was called "The Game of happiness." Well, apparently not passed on to the small biondocrinita little head, perhaps, that it would have been able to get her longed-doll if she complained. Or, even better, he would try also giving away those crutches happiness to a needy person.
We come to us many times you hear say that, basically, you feel good, that nobody should complain. All right, yes. Nobody says that we are with the water in the throat and that Italy is getting bad. We also unnecessary and perhaps more. But note, first, that anger does not correspond well to both spiritual progress (also a Catholic, mutatis mutandis may subscribe to this statement!) Or diffusion of knowledge, and generosity. In addition, we often do not realize what could be improved. To fare better than someone else is not a good reason to think we have come to perfection. Note that the argument ("Why fight for the law X? Basically we are not not bad") is often and gladly camped by those who recognize that the law X yes, bring some benefit to someone, but he believes in personally do not need it, or not having to have never needed in the future so that this poison is a direct distillation of intellectual myopia, selfishness and laziness.
Valete.
0 comments:
Post a Comment