The question of approach took shape in my head about a post conversacióny my curiosity that led to a search by the network. Between one to another page I found a discussion given by someone on the shortcomings of the democratic system of government as' the best ', detracting in favor of a system of spirit' logocrático '- the government of pure reason and objective about subjectivity and prejudices imposed by a majority as good / desirable or bad / disadvantages. While my search had been more oriented to think logocr & aacutJan (that, or in a particularly masochistic sense of understanding preferring enjoy the disaster), but to issue the opinion that democracy does not serve the person is implying that no alternative (s) that does serve (n) and tacitly says that at the time suggested that 'this or that scheme is that should be implemented instead of democracy', namely logocrático regime if we occupies. Understanding logocracy (beg indulgence for the simplicity of my definition that rubs and the rough) and the primacy of reason, a word, the Logos - the inherent right of, in and of itself; the same exponent of the objectivistd - and the human being as a mere vector or user of that reason, already hovering at the absurd is the claim that pure reason and objective that can be transferred to moral beings human subjective and applied in absolute terms.
absolute objectivity exists only as an abstract concept in radical opposition of subjectivity (which does not exist in absolute terms in human nature), it is also a fact. Meeting therefore unlikely to be seeking the establishment of a regime based on "the objectivity of pure reason and free from bias '(or' whatmost appropriate means', the dictatorship of the majority) whether in practice people are not purely objective, as moral beings because we are always judging human acts according to our subjective perception what is good / convenient and bad / inconvenient.
Subjectivity is integral and intrinsic to human nature, goes through many conditions - socio-cultural environment where people are raised, their own convictions, doubts, beliefs, feelings, etc. - And so they should not raise people completely isolated from everything and everyone that they were not influenced. That, of course, is impossibilityand gregarious beings as we speak, not to mention that even if the attempt that is quite simply impossible for a creature to survive in the said conditions.
And anyway, who would be the spokesmen for that reason ininfluenciables objective in the hypothetical case of The introduction of a 'logocrático order'? We keep talking about human beings, with their objectivity and subjectivity wick in your thinking and in their procedures. No people or 100% 100% objective and subjective.
I know a Platonic undoubtedly taste the claim that pure reason which directs human actions by their puppet strings. In Plato, co
0 comments:
Post a Comment