- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 9,151
- Reaction score
- 9
I have to admit its a bit above my head. She went to Seconda Università Degli Studi Di Napoli so she's educated. What do you think about what she wrote? btw her name is Valentina Nappi.
"
The observation of regularity in the world, the notice of (at least apparent) regularity in the world has a dual nature, is a two-faced medal. There is one side, a face of the opening medal, open to rational design that uses the laws observed to guide its transformative action; But there is also the other face of the coin, which is the fact that regularity, the "laws" that we infer from the observation of various species of phenomena in the world, seem to actually "ban" the possibilities.If we write F = but, force equals mass for acceleration, on the one hand we have some knowledge that we can serve to plan and fly and transform the world; On the other we have placed some sort of limit, we have found that it is impossible to achieve objects that accelerate (with the same mass and strength applied to them) far more than "established" by the law F = ma. Well, there is good news and good news: the first good news is that the first face of the coin is real and important, the second good news is that the second face of the coin is false (since, as far as possible, Even the most basic laws of the physics that are currently more advanced will sooner or later become false). Any kind of knowledge (physics, chemistry, biological, medical, economic, psychological, Social sciences, etc.) that allows us to transform the world is true and important; At the same time, any kind of knowledge (physics, chemistry, biological, medical, economic, psychological, social sciences, etc.) that prevents us, or rather prevents us, from transforming the world is false.
The theoretical core of the fascists of the various historical epochs is not recognizing these two "good news", or not considering them as good news. They start from the observation of the existent to infer limits, rules, "balances", natural forms of order, moral principles, cycles, roles, and so on. Rather than the possibility of transcendence. Or to infer from "having to be" instead of "having to transform". This is true regardless of the correctness of their observations. Examples of famous fascist speeches are found in all the historical epochs. Two of them, paradoxes, very distant over time, are the apologue of Menenio Agrippa and the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem of John Paul II. It is evident that such a dishonest and logical stance is that of those who would want to prevent or discourage the subversion of some (dear ones) existing order. Fascists are also liberal ideologists who would like to eternalize certain true or supposed "laws" of the market. It goes without saying that fascists are also characters - all in some way "essentials" - like Mario Adinolfi, Diego Fusaro ... or Michael Sandel, to shoot at the top.
All this must be borne in mind for any force that wants to be "left": always keep in mind that - today more than ever - the social claims and struggles against conservativeism and economic reactionary of a neoliberal brand (and soon liberalist -protectionist) can not accompany - due to absorption in the adverse part - to the decline of the avant-garde category. A concrete example: you can not be at the same time left and against sexual communism."
http://blog-micromega.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/?p=22325
"
The observation of regularity in the world, the notice of (at least apparent) regularity in the world has a dual nature, is a two-faced medal. There is one side, a face of the opening medal, open to rational design that uses the laws observed to guide its transformative action; But there is also the other face of the coin, which is the fact that regularity, the "laws" that we infer from the observation of various species of phenomena in the world, seem to actually "ban" the possibilities.If we write F = but, force equals mass for acceleration, on the one hand we have some knowledge that we can serve to plan and fly and transform the world; On the other we have placed some sort of limit, we have found that it is impossible to achieve objects that accelerate (with the same mass and strength applied to them) far more than "established" by the law F = ma. Well, there is good news and good news: the first good news is that the first face of the coin is real and important, the second good news is that the second face of the coin is false (since, as far as possible, Even the most basic laws of the physics that are currently more advanced will sooner or later become false). Any kind of knowledge (physics, chemistry, biological, medical, economic, psychological, Social sciences, etc.) that allows us to transform the world is true and important; At the same time, any kind of knowledge (physics, chemistry, biological, medical, economic, psychological, social sciences, etc.) that prevents us, or rather prevents us, from transforming the world is false.
The theoretical core of the fascists of the various historical epochs is not recognizing these two "good news", or not considering them as good news. They start from the observation of the existent to infer limits, rules, "balances", natural forms of order, moral principles, cycles, roles, and so on. Rather than the possibility of transcendence. Or to infer from "having to be" instead of "having to transform". This is true regardless of the correctness of their observations. Examples of famous fascist speeches are found in all the historical epochs. Two of them, paradoxes, very distant over time, are the apologue of Menenio Agrippa and the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem of John Paul II. It is evident that such a dishonest and logical stance is that of those who would want to prevent or discourage the subversion of some (dear ones) existing order. Fascists are also liberal ideologists who would like to eternalize certain true or supposed "laws" of the market. It goes without saying that fascists are also characters - all in some way "essentials" - like Mario Adinolfi, Diego Fusaro ... or Michael Sandel, to shoot at the top.
All this must be borne in mind for any force that wants to be "left": always keep in mind that - today more than ever - the social claims and struggles against conservativeism and economic reactionary of a neoliberal brand (and soon liberalist -protectionist) can not accompany - due to absorption in the adverse part - to the decline of the avant-garde category. A concrete example: you can not be at the same time left and against sexual communism."
