There are some points that deserve to be taken into account when assessing the project philosophical (and theological) release Ignacio Ellacuría, in the light of authors or approaches perhaps with less of a presence about him that we have already widely been considered in this blog. We need to seek some counterweights help us to relativize critically some aspects. Thus, in a particular part of his presentation to the International Congress "Ellacuría: 20 years later, Professor Juan Antonio Estrada said with a critical view some clarifications to parts of philosophy ellacuriana. We now turn to one of them. This is the need for philosophy and theology of history are not defined over a single Marxist paradigm that includes elements of European political theology (Metz) and an author maverick within Marxism as Walter Benjamin. In Benjamin highlights the incomplete nature of any historical settings as that always remains (the suffering of the victims in the past) should be collected and incorporated herein so that adds to, paradoxically, an extra forward, a sort of elusive open space that prevents us not to crystallize any moment in history for very successful and we look good this time. That is, it is incorporating a lot of negativity that challenges any historical settings so that if thought is receptive to it should not incur the absolutism of any forms of practice or theory that justifies the practice .
Crack attributed in previous post obstacles in the historical reality that inhibited the achievement of good potential favoring the presence of the given, is extended if our gaze turns to the insurmountable in the past. This is something that can not ever fully met, and that will always be a remainder, which Benjamin identifies as outstanding accounts with the victims falling in the past that can never be paid off in the immanence of history. This is where, perhaps dangerously for some, Benjamin or a theory of history inspired him could be close to a hint of transcendence beyond the immanent, which would materialize in the ongoing misgivings about the given. This suspicion, if it is also absolute, would lead to the denial of the world as such in reality. Therefore, this pessimism can be accused of dangerously gnostizante (nihilistic), but also not forget the triumphant optimism, including the victorious revolution and the seizure of power, can hold obvious dangers at this point in history we have witnessed and on numerous occasions. Are two extremes that become two separate nihilisms being played: the suppression and rejection of the world and man as evil, on the one hand, and the slaughter of the world and man with an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat they should be. Benjamin, in perspective, protects us from both.
But the it should be noted that although honestly needed to overcome all pessimism gnostizante (the first of the two extreme nihilists), we have implicitly emphasized in the long series of posts dedicated to Ellacuría, yes it would be appropriate to maintain at least some shade of the old Gnosticism. In the world nothing is finished, and it lacks a qualitative ambiguity if we think of global ratings of good guy-bad. I mean this incompleteness holds an insurmountable ambiguity and tension that lead man on the one hand to a full acceptance of reality (Epicurus, Marx) or on the other side to a denial of it (Schopenhauer). I do not see how to overcome this ambiguity that suggests the real. Certainly the philosophical system-ellacuriano Zubiri stressed the structural incompleteness of the world and reality, but does not sufficiently negative element and that is that in Benjamin's terms, the insurmountable past horrible that very well today we were to live forever remain. If this is theology or pointing to some of the belief, is another issue we can discuss, but it is true that there are elements in historical reality, and this is where there is truth in theology (Horkheimer), forcing us to relativize all particular configuration of historical reality however fair or good for all that it has been established. This is a component or tragic condition of human existence, especially if we decide to remain philosophically in immanence, where lies the other painful, and which is also highlighted by the philosophy of Albert Camus. The moment of truth of Gnosticism would be the highlight this tragic fate intrinsic immanent. See openness within immanence itself and overcoming possibility is healthy to undertake changes towards a fairer world, but these changes can not ever become a panacea for the sufferings of human beings. How can we balance the fatalism of the eternal loss to the decisive political action (utopian and revolutionary) is an issue to begin must lead us to relativize every practice and every theory about the history, wisely.
Ellacuría presents an option that emphasizes that good is possible in immanence, developing a material ethics (and politics) of the release. Another option of fighting, more tragic in the sense fatum insurmountable and that with the ambiguity of all combat Stoic ethics would be the second Camus. In Camus ( Plague, The Rebel ) is a solution to the strictly immanent evil men committed, but there is an ember in the solution unsurpassed negativity that stigmatizes the existence of men. Here, it has long wanted to see an affinity with boldness, between stoicism and perhaps aspired Camus at the bottom to try to marry later Marxism (in philosophy of immanence and utopian) and stoicism, which seems an impossibility and an absurdity . Stoicism is true that points to a metaphysics of eternal return, cyclical, as I read in Bloch, opposite the forward voltage of Marxism or own it free of Gnostic Christianity. The conception of history as a constant transformation overcoming or Marxism or Christianity provides a basis for hope that does not make the tragic fatalism stoic, but this, however, rightly warns us that there are in a destination like Sisyphus is repeated wearily, despite all the achievements of men: a type of perennial failure, the fact that the historical achievements are half-human because all projects are truncated and are just babies. Is the fragmented nature always brings history, crying so unfinished that can never be restored. The release and how to fight the pagan Stoics (Epictetus, Seneca) started from this pathos unquestionable. This is what in Marxist philosophy introduces Benjamin. An eternal return of evil which makes the bad in constant presence and company of men.
We came to refer to a constant tension between two poles, permanence of evil and overcoming evil, which is on the tightrope of human history. And we can certainly keep this tension as did Benjamin agnostic or Camus. Agnosticism that accompanies the shadow of God, or wish that things were otherwise or would have been better for men. It is the space in which to deposit messianic hopes of those who were lost all hopes. Although this desire refers to the world, part of the world itself and is expressed in worldly terms, as I wish is, however, points to the dream of another world. So, something so human, too human, the desire and the hope would point to an afterlife where you can easily suspect the shadow of God is absolutely transcendent. In any case, the negative element in the history act as spurs to the horse of history and holds an inherent feature that runs in practice, much as it is not depleted. Therefore, nothing can remain as such in history. On the positive side, this is the element that helps us to overcome this specific tyrannies. "You have to make room for the Messianic time, maintaining the limited nature of social transformation and avoiding any triumphalism of the historical accomplishments, generating new forms of social violence "(p. 464). I play in this regard is that Estrada says that "Benjamin's approach is more radical than I. Ellacuría "(p. 464).
0 comments:
Post a Comment