Accelerationism förknippas oftast med Nick Land och det som brukar benämnas ”den mörka upplysningen” vilket i korthet är en ideologisk strömning som förespråkar att medborgaren i en modern stat med demokrati som styrelseskick är oförenlig med frihetsidealet och lider av att inkompetenta idioter tilldelas otillbörlig makt över medborgarens liv, vilket de önskar leder till kontrarevolution där kapitalet lett av auktoritära neo-fascister ska ska förverkliga teknokratin och således skänka mänskligheten den efterlängtade friheten.
Eller alternativt diametralt marxistiska förhoppningar om att kapitalismens ekonomiska apparatur istället lider av sådana grundfel att det monetära systemet snart kollapsar, och att dessa drömmare sedan ur askan tänker sig kunna förverkliga Karl Marx gamla dröm (som om det inte fanns något grundfel i detta).
Den italienska filosofen och politiska tänkaren Augusto Del Noce gjorde många förutsägelser och hade mycket intressant att säga i ämnet.
Wikipedia sammanfattar Del Noces opus såhär;
Vad tänker ni om accelerationism, friheten och det ideologiska klimatet i moderna demokratier?
Uppfattar ni växande problem i modern civilisation?
Förutspår ni systemkollaps eller ser ni framtida fördelar dessa problem?
Väntar den sokratiska eudaimonologin en återkomst?
Vad tror ni, är det gasen i botten som gäller?
Tacksam för alla relevanta svar!
Tänk på att detta filosofiforumet, så politiska ställningstaganden utan djupare analys undanbedes strängeligen vänligt.
Eller alternativt diametralt marxistiska förhoppningar om att kapitalismens ekonomiska apparatur istället lider av sådana grundfel att det monetära systemet snart kollapsar, och att dessa drömmare sedan ur askan tänker sig kunna förverkliga Karl Marx gamla dröm (som om det inte fanns något grundfel i detta).
Den italienska filosofen och politiska tänkaren Augusto Del Noce gjorde många förutsägelser och hade mycket intressant att säga i ämnet.
Wikipedia sammanfattar Del Noces opus såhär;
Citat:
A common thread of Del Noce's work is the attempt to understand the connection between philosophical ideas and socio-political history. Against the prevailing Marxist and neo-positivist opinions of his contemporaries, he always maintained that philosophical ideas influence the course of human history, and that modern history in particular can only be understood as the unfolding of certain philosophical options (rationalism, immanentism, scientism). In fact, one of his core ideas was that modern history, if correctly interpreted, provides the best vindication of classical metaphysics by showing that rationalism leads to contradictory outcomes, as exemplified by the trajectory of Marxism. In some of his best known works [12] he advanced the thesis that Marxism suffers what he called an "heterogenesis of ends," meaning that it is destined to triumph and self-destruct at the same time, due to its internal contradictions. To triumph, because Marx’s radical atheism and materialism are the most consistent outcomes of European rationalism. To self-destruct because, as soon as the revolutionary dream fades away, Marxian historical materialism must degenerate into absolute relativism and open the way to a “perfectly bourgeois” society, a de-humanized world that does not recognize any permanent order of values and in which alienation becomes complete.
More generally, Del Noce regarded the expansion of atheism as the central question of modern philosophy.[13] Its appearance at the endpoint of all forms of rationalism reveals that rationalism itself is based on a precondition, namely the decision to reject any notion of an original fall. A careful investigation of philosophy after Descartes shows that rejecting the status naturae lapsae was the first step in rejecting the supernatural, to be followed later on by the rejection of every form of transcendence. However, since these rejections cannot be based on any proof, atheism can only justify itself as the outcome of an irreversible historical process, understood as a process of secularization and, at the same time, as the only practical attitude which is capable of actually producing universal human fulfillment. In other words, for late rationalism the criterion of truth of a philosophy reduces to its ability to surpass and integrate all previous forms of thought. For this reason, Del Noce regarded the periodization of history of philosophy itself as the crucial theoretical question of contemporary philosophy. In his book The Problem of Atheism he argued that, precisely in order to place atheism in the history of philosophy, it is necessary to call into question and to abandon the view that the process of the history of thought is a unitary process towards immanentism. This shows that atheism is not the necessary outcome of modern philosophy, but rather a problematic outcome, inasmuch it does not lead to the promised fulfillment but rather to forms of nihilism. Contemporary history provides the best proof that the trajectory of rationalism has a nihilistic endpoint: atheism has achieved complete success not in the historical implementation of Marxism, but rather in the affluent society, which pushes to the extreme the de-humanization of the relationship with the other. In its historical realization Marxism has ended up being a stage in the development of the affluent society, which accepts all its negations of traditional thought but at the same time eliminates the messianic/religious aspect of Marxism.[14]
In the late 1960s Del Noce’s focused his attention on the task of constructing a philosophical interpretation of the most recent developments in contemporary history. In particular, he felt the need for a clear philosophical understanding of the new challenges that were being posed by the progressivism of the 1960s (in both its secular and Catholic forms), by the rampant secularization of European society, by the sexual revolution and in general by the new technocratic and affluent society that had taken shape after the Second World War. His most significant essays from this period were collected in the volume The Age of Secularization. Del Noce argued that Western history after 1945 was marked by a particular interpretation of the historical period between the two World Wars. According to this “progressive” interpretation, Nazism and Fascism were symptoms of a general collapse of European civilization, which must be replaced by a new civilization based on science and on the rejection of all metaphysical doctrines. This has led to a type of new Enlightenment, which however is an Enlightenment after Marx, inasmuch it preserves all of Marx’s metaphysical negations. Del Noce maintained that the outcome of this new scientistic-relativistic-progressivist culture is necessarily nihilistic and totalitarian, since science per se is not capable of formulating new ideals. As a response, he developed a different interpretation of contemporary history,[15] in which Fascism and Nazism are just stages in a broader process of secularization that actually centers on Marxism and on the failure of the modern “revolutionary gnosis.” He also argued that the correct way to answer the challenge posed by secularization is not by rejecting modernity altogether but by correcting it in light of the classical metaphysical tradition, which must be rediscovered, renewed and purified.
Del Noce wrote extensively[16] about Freudo-Marxism and on the relationship between political progressivism and the sexual revolution. He argued that both of them are rooted in the denial a priori that human reason is capable of reaching meta-empirical truths, and so they are tightly linked with scientism, the dogmatic belief that the empirical sciences are the only form of rationality. The reduction of reason to science goes hand in hand with the reduction of freedom to the satisfaction of instincts, which in turn is expressed politically as fight against “repression” and leads to a radical rejection of all traditional values. He further argued that the scientistic postulate is intrinsically totalitarian, inasmuch it de-legitimates all other forms of knowledge.
Del Noce also studied in depth the relationship between freedom and authority. In a long essay[17] from 1975 he pointed out that, whereas in the classic and humanistic tradition authority was associated with liberation (e.g. from the power of sub-human instincts and from social manipulation), contemporary culture associates authority with repression. As a result, the modern world confuses authority and power with disastrous effects. In particular, the progressive culture since World War II has associated the defense of freedom with the rejection of metaphysical knowledge and the embrace of relativism. However, any form of liberalism that does not acknowledge the nature of authority must conclude to an even greater oppression, by making the individual completely dependent on society. According to Del Noce, freedom can only be defended by rediscovering the true meaning of authority, which is tightly linked to the idea of evidence. Evidence is the foundation and the paradigm of authority, because it asks of the mind a more radical submission than could be obtained by force, but in this submission the mind finds its ultimate liberation from all arbitrary social powers. Thus, Del Noce said, the theme of authority brings us back to the Socratic origins of classical metaphysics, which have to be rediscovered in order to overcome the present crisis of our civilization.
More generally, Del Noce regarded the expansion of atheism as the central question of modern philosophy.[13] Its appearance at the endpoint of all forms of rationalism reveals that rationalism itself is based on a precondition, namely the decision to reject any notion of an original fall. A careful investigation of philosophy after Descartes shows that rejecting the status naturae lapsae was the first step in rejecting the supernatural, to be followed later on by the rejection of every form of transcendence. However, since these rejections cannot be based on any proof, atheism can only justify itself as the outcome of an irreversible historical process, understood as a process of secularization and, at the same time, as the only practical attitude which is capable of actually producing universal human fulfillment. In other words, for late rationalism the criterion of truth of a philosophy reduces to its ability to surpass and integrate all previous forms of thought. For this reason, Del Noce regarded the periodization of history of philosophy itself as the crucial theoretical question of contemporary philosophy. In his book The Problem of Atheism he argued that, precisely in order to place atheism in the history of philosophy, it is necessary to call into question and to abandon the view that the process of the history of thought is a unitary process towards immanentism. This shows that atheism is not the necessary outcome of modern philosophy, but rather a problematic outcome, inasmuch it does not lead to the promised fulfillment but rather to forms of nihilism. Contemporary history provides the best proof that the trajectory of rationalism has a nihilistic endpoint: atheism has achieved complete success not in the historical implementation of Marxism, but rather in the affluent society, which pushes to the extreme the de-humanization of the relationship with the other. In its historical realization Marxism has ended up being a stage in the development of the affluent society, which accepts all its negations of traditional thought but at the same time eliminates the messianic/religious aspect of Marxism.[14]
In the late 1960s Del Noce’s focused his attention on the task of constructing a philosophical interpretation of the most recent developments in contemporary history. In particular, he felt the need for a clear philosophical understanding of the new challenges that were being posed by the progressivism of the 1960s (in both its secular and Catholic forms), by the rampant secularization of European society, by the sexual revolution and in general by the new technocratic and affluent society that had taken shape after the Second World War. His most significant essays from this period were collected in the volume The Age of Secularization. Del Noce argued that Western history after 1945 was marked by a particular interpretation of the historical period between the two World Wars. According to this “progressive” interpretation, Nazism and Fascism were symptoms of a general collapse of European civilization, which must be replaced by a new civilization based on science and on the rejection of all metaphysical doctrines. This has led to a type of new Enlightenment, which however is an Enlightenment after Marx, inasmuch it preserves all of Marx’s metaphysical negations. Del Noce maintained that the outcome of this new scientistic-relativistic-progressivist culture is necessarily nihilistic and totalitarian, since science per se is not capable of formulating new ideals. As a response, he developed a different interpretation of contemporary history,[15] in which Fascism and Nazism are just stages in a broader process of secularization that actually centers on Marxism and on the failure of the modern “revolutionary gnosis.” He also argued that the correct way to answer the challenge posed by secularization is not by rejecting modernity altogether but by correcting it in light of the classical metaphysical tradition, which must be rediscovered, renewed and purified.
Del Noce wrote extensively[16] about Freudo-Marxism and on the relationship between political progressivism and the sexual revolution. He argued that both of them are rooted in the denial a priori that human reason is capable of reaching meta-empirical truths, and so they are tightly linked with scientism, the dogmatic belief that the empirical sciences are the only form of rationality. The reduction of reason to science goes hand in hand with the reduction of freedom to the satisfaction of instincts, which in turn is expressed politically as fight against “repression” and leads to a radical rejection of all traditional values. He further argued that the scientistic postulate is intrinsically totalitarian, inasmuch it de-legitimates all other forms of knowledge.
Del Noce also studied in depth the relationship between freedom and authority. In a long essay[17] from 1975 he pointed out that, whereas in the classic and humanistic tradition authority was associated with liberation (e.g. from the power of sub-human instincts and from social manipulation), contemporary culture associates authority with repression. As a result, the modern world confuses authority and power with disastrous effects. In particular, the progressive culture since World War II has associated the defense of freedom with the rejection of metaphysical knowledge and the embrace of relativism. However, any form of liberalism that does not acknowledge the nature of authority must conclude to an even greater oppression, by making the individual completely dependent on society. According to Del Noce, freedom can only be defended by rediscovering the true meaning of authority, which is tightly linked to the idea of evidence. Evidence is the foundation and the paradigm of authority, because it asks of the mind a more radical submission than could be obtained by force, but in this submission the mind finds its ultimate liberation from all arbitrary social powers. Thus, Del Noce said, the theme of authority brings us back to the Socratic origins of classical metaphysics, which have to be rediscovered in order to overcome the present crisis of our civilization.
Vad tänker ni om accelerationism, friheten och det ideologiska klimatet i moderna demokratier?
Uppfattar ni växande problem i modern civilisation?
Förutspår ni systemkollaps eller ser ni framtida fördelar dessa problem?
Väntar den sokratiska eudaimonologin en återkomst?
Vad tror ni, är det gasen i botten som gäller?
Tacksam för alla relevanta svar!
Tänk på att detta filosofiforumet, så politiska ställningstaganden utan djupare analys undanbedes strängeligen vänligt.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Epistememe 2022-02-22 kl. 23:39.
Senast redigerad av Epistememe 2022-02-22 kl. 23:39.
