The philosophy does not pose to be divining, but holds
the possibility of thinking about the future, philosophy, futuristic starting
to rethink past conditions may become in this, as exhibited in his work
Riccardo Campa of the Jagiellonian University, located in Kraków, Poland, “the
Treatise of philosophy futurist” and taking as reference the bet Filippo
Tommaso Marinetti.
To ask ourselves about war requires that somewhat
hermeneutic exercise in which the futurist surpasses the artistic, the ethical,
the poetic, the epistemological and so on, to get to situate ourselves in what
is given to us within the context in which we live. Already in the article on
this blog titled Philosophy of the War, were some concerns to the
debate concerning the implications shooting war is not experienced by many of
our readers, perhaps studied so fragile and perhaps understood by those who
have experienced it both as participants and victims.
Again you have the urge to ask questions philosophical
about a topic as fateful as it is the war, when the philosophy futuristic lacks
a current loop of theoretical elements derived from that thinking in critical
moments such as the ones currently registered humanity or perhaps not, as there
are on the shelves of many of us, important sections of citizens of the world
that led to the posterity of what is happening, and will happen with regard to
the extinction of a major segment of humanity, or humanity itself, from a
political or ideological perspective, in any case humanist in the local,
regional, national and of course international.
To question the ethics of the power of those who are
in him, and for the suitability, by its conception of humanity, for your mental
health, among many more, it is a premise of the greatest importance that the
citizens of the polis, of course philosophers all, we'll have to question both
ask if the determinations of one or another representative to that extent, you
can reach in your illusion to sustain itself in power, or achieve the same,
affecting innocent people, and with it a whole series of events, unwanted,
which can be detrimental for giving an example “of climate change.” There are
no guarantees anywhere on the planet to be safe, we live in a world of
uncertainty, we live in a pandemic, the pandemic of violence, which takes away
lives, illusions and good people.
https://www.pinterest.es/pin/420664421425294566/
Is the premise that the end justifies the means fair?
Of course, from the advantageous position of who, bets knowing that he will
win, already in his action it turns him into a being that could be qualified as
mean, but it is not always so because there are jousts that are waged for the
benefit of humanity and that does not intend to crush the innocence of people.
Is it ethical to get out of difficulties by having to undermine others? The human condition is very complex, the more you
have, the more you want to have, there are no scruples in it, ego, narcissism,
ambition persists like cancer in the body, in itself war is bad for some and
good for others, therefore war is not good or bad, it is war and always
contains what overwhelms us. Especially when we pose unnoticed in front of what
does not affect us momentarily and this already makes us complicit in the war.
Why not worry about what's going on in the backyard, on the other side, on the
other side of the world? Dear readers, we have to think that a nuclear war
decreases in us a great chance of survival and the future of our offspring,
perhaps in the comfortable place where you are not of major interest to
philosophize on this issue, but it is important to do so stripped of that which
we are strong in this very moment to move our opinion on the respect of
otherness. The war cannot be abolished because it is a matter of
the zoom politikón, does not respect boundaries, ethical, moral, religious,
ideological, does not respect age, or gender, or likes, or dislikes, no respect
for anything, because if the war is valid after its genesis is not possible to
measure consequences for the more that think about it, the collateral damage
are unimaginable and with a social cost almost irreparable, as the tissue of
the human being is descose drowned in his own tears in his own moan. The term
coined for Clausewitz,” war is the continuation of politics by other means,
" may mean, among many other meanings, that war could be avoided, and if
it occurred, the life of the vanquished could be respected.
Today, with the development of this possibility, no
one doubts that a third world war will hardly end otherwise than with the
annihilation of the vanquished. We are all so fascinated by all-out war that we
can hardly imagine that the American Constitution or the present Russian regime
survived defeat following an eventual war between Russia and America. But this
means that in a future war it would no longer be a question of the achievement
or loss of power, of borders, of markets and vital spaces, of issues, in short,
which could also be obtained without violence through political negotiation.
(Arend, 2008, pp. 188-189)
Thus, it is understood that there can be a victor in a
nuclear war. Is that possible? Where are human rights, international
humanitarian law and other treaties that seek to promote the existence of the
human being? How can you help? Is it not the beginning of the end of mankind?
Are we witnessing the fourth war and not the third world war? What can we call
the cold war?
Referencia
Arend, H. (2008). La promesa de la
política. España: PÁIDOS.
Campa, Riccardo. (2012). Trattato
di filosofia futurista. AVANGUARDIA 21 EDIZIONI
No hay comentarios: