Scritto da
Non Autenticato
il 2020-06-19 02:48:03.0 alle 2020-06-19 02:48:03.0
I agree with your concerns about society but, in my opinion, you are using the word progress in a meaning that's common, but misleading and even reassuring in spite of your opposite intent. In high school we were once given an essay about progress, science, and such. That task probably made me think at progress in a way I didn't before, because I wrote something, who remembers, that the teacher dismissed as sophistry: Progress - she cut short - is going forward. We came from too different backgrounds to understand each other, she progressist and Italian, I Piedmontese and conservationalist, so I always got just passing grades. Fortunately I was good at other subjects. Now I admit that on the last point she was right: to progress means to advance, has essentially nothing to do with making things better. Etymologically and in facts, progress means moving in a direction, and if this direction is wrong, progress means walking to the worse. So there's no need to contrast progress with retrogress, it's only a matter of direction, and whether this direction is good for you or not.
Some changes are good for you, some for someone else. A progressist is one who thinks that what is good for him is the natural direction of history, so universal and absolute that can, and must, be imposed on others, even those who don't like or need it.
I'm currently quite disappointed. The speed at which every anti-system party is neutralized as quick as it governs, makes me think that voting is utterly useless. With certain ideas (like those expressed in your blog, for example) it's hard to find a party to vote, and if you find it, it's unlikely it can win any elections. Both happen, by a sort of miracle, and your party suddenly merges into the same monster it has been voted to fight. My feel is that, if you win the elections, somebody approaches you and reveals that the world is actually ruled by masters so powerful that you cannot even think not to follow their directions, so you do.
Some people were lucky enough to survive nazism, others to see the end of the Soviet Union. I fear I won't live enough to see the demise of the current regime, and if I would, I'm not sure something better will replace it.
By the way, I found your blog while searching for Konrad Lorenz and nazism. I read "He assumed a homology between domesticated animals and civilized human beings" and found you perfectly synthesized his thought. It has been observed, to confute the hypothesis of such a homology, that domesticated species undergo a selective pressure from their breeders to acquire certain desired features, while urban, civilized humans simply lack a pressure from their environment to keep (supposed) wild characters of original humans. However, even without suspecting that we have our breeders as well, results seem the same.
Some changes are good for you, some for someone else. A progressist is one who thinks that what is good for him is the natural direction of history, so universal and absolute that can, and must, be imposed on others, even those who don't like or need it.
I'm currently quite disappointed. The speed at which every anti-system party is neutralized as quick as it governs, makes me think that voting is utterly useless. With certain ideas (like those expressed in your blog, for example) it's hard to find a party to vote, and if you find it, it's unlikely it can win any elections. Both happen, by a sort of miracle, and your party suddenly merges into the same monster it has been voted to fight. My feel is that, if you win the elections, somebody approaches you and reveals that the world is actually ruled by masters so powerful that you cannot even think not to follow their directions, so you do.
Some people were lucky enough to survive nazism, others to see the end of the Soviet Union. I fear I won't live enough to see the demise of the current regime, and if I would, I'm not sure something better will replace it.
By the way, I found your blog while searching for Konrad Lorenz and nazism. I read "He assumed a homology between domesticated animals and civilized human beings" and found you perfectly synthesized his thought. It has been observed, to confute the hypothesis of such a homology, that domesticated species undergo a selective pressure from their breeders to acquire certain desired features, while urban, civilized humans simply lack a pressure from their environment to keep (supposed) wild characters of original humans. However, even without suspecting that we have our breeders as well, results seem the same.
-
Commento @ 2020-06-19 02:48:03.0 di Non Autenticato
-
■ @ 2020-06-19 04:19:36.0 di Mattia
-
■ @ 2020-06-26 00:31:13.0 di Alessandrox
-
■ @ 2020-06-26 16:27:09.0 di Non Autenticato
-
-
■ @ 2020-06-20 00:53:14.0 di Non Autenticato
-
-