Tag: philosophy

There are many bright spots in Hegel’s reasoning, but his conclusions always seem to fall into error. He praises renunciation and sacrifice, basing his reasoning on a mixture of logic and morality, and then proposes that both have to be done uselessly and automatically, not because of an individual manifestation of self-denial, detachment, kindness, empathy, or whatever, but because of the duty to fulfill an order of the State. What a conclusion! Following the philosopher, what is certain is that the disciple, practicing them in this way, will never know the real value of renunciation and sacrifice. It is as obvious as it is stupid to explain it: he who sacrifices a good to his neighbor when the latter is in need, is performing an action of immediate effect, and the sacrifice is therefore fruitful and virtuous; he who, on the other hand, sacrifices a good to the State, that is, to this corrupt, authoritarian, greedy and usurping organization, whose resources it plunders are largely used to maintain and expand the domination it exercises over individuals, the sacrifice is not only useless, but it also takes on the shape of an insult. How is it possible not to realize this? Not to mention that such sacrifice, in the latter case, is made by imposition, and that failure to comply with it implies punishment. Once again, since I am benevolent, I will not draw a conclusion.

What a joy it is to accompany Hegel for hundreds of pages to then see him teach us that the noble conscience is the one that obeys, gagged and on its knees, the orders of the State. “Noble consciousness,” therefore, is the submissive consciousness, powerless before the “ruling power,” devoid of individuality, devoid, precisely, of any distinctive feature that could identify it as superior. If this is nobility, we can suppose Beauty as the aesthetics of rape and massive corruption of consciences.

The spirit inclined to attachment is not prepared for this life. It will methodically be forced to swallow inevitable separations, which will less instruct it because they do not come from a conscious decision. It will be held hostage to circumstances and suffer from feeling powerless in the face of them. The ability to choose often to break up is rare, and is reserved only for those who understand and accept that everything in this world has to come to an end.

It is incredible how far away from reality the person who locks himself up in a university and devotes himself one hundred percent to academic research is. If he is an intellectual, he disbands his faculty, using it in a private world alien to reality. For the rest, he does not even complain, because he exercises a profession: it is as if he accepts the price. And in this he loses the flame that encourages study because sees in it the hope of solutions to problems of real importance. The intellectual needs to regularly suffer reality shocks, so that he can insert reality into what he thinks; otherwise he loses himself in futility and his thinking becomes useless. Cioran, for example, was more philosophical every time he burst out buying vegetables in the market and let the consequences take the form of French prose. In short: the problem has never been to isolate oneself from the world, but rather to completely abandon its forcefulness by letting oneself be inundated with the sterility of abstractions.