The Enlightenment was responsible for convincing the man that is rational. Not so, of course. The instincts and emotions do not disappear before a formal declaration (thankfully) y. an overwhelming proportion, men continue to take its decisions by emotional impulses. What did humans do to continue seeing itself as rational? Learning how to build a posteriori arguments to justify emotional decisions taken in advance. Is this a skill that has reached heights of virtuosity, it has come to get it instantly and without being aware of the process. At this stage we are: a man is not primarily rational, but mentirosillo (even to himself) what he does, often, a little tiresome.
Within the map the person's emotions, there is a really important one set (immortality, membership, helplessness ...) that were traditionally shelter in religion. I do not think good or bad. But religions that had expressly waived the application of reason in his field, for this reason were completely discredited by the Enlightenment. Emotions had not disappeared, of course, but modern man could not go to religion. What to do? Then look for something new * that, while satisfying their desire to continue to immortality and belonging, and giving meaning to their lives, to maintain an acceptable rational costume. It was time, therefore, scientific religion, which Marxism and its derivatives are an obvious example.
Seen from this perspective what is meant by secularism? What religion is absent from politics? Well, this is something that the Catholic religion has gotten long. But obviously not true of modern religions, in which the policy is, precisely, the reservoir of religious emotions. It is highly ridiculous, while the most ardent secularists are, at the same time, followers of a religion as the progression policy.
* This, I believe, to regard the famous phrase of Chesterton evil that men have stopped believing in God is not no longer believe in anything but are willing to believe in everything.
0 comments:
Post a Comment