Bodies Exhibit Pittsburgh

Critical thinking ... free, but ignored

I just read "Postwar (Taurus, 2010), the monumental book by Tony Judt, who examines the history of Europe since the Second World War until the late twentieth century. Much could be said of this work, which is an amazing self-criticism, without concessions hash of a history full of events as yet unknown and detailed assessment of what has meant the European reconfiguration process for its own citizens and for the world, but for now I will focus on one aspect that has caught enough attention. I refer to the importance throughout much of the period studied was given to the intellectual as a reference to take into account or, in any case, as the recipient of awards or the beatings that elicited their views on the part of the class politics, and was in power or in opposition.

reflections of thinkers like Sartre, Camus, Huxley, Ortega, Gramsci, Malraux, Habermas, Bobbio, Rawls, Berlin ... and many others, all first class not let indifferent to those involved in public affairs . His writings were read, cited, there was no hesitate to admit the impact of their observations after transmitting speech in Parliament, where they were frequently cited and recognized. For better or for worse, but never forgotten, because it was understood that what they said they could help. A sort of bond value was set between them. There was even relevant policy not hesitate to point out how much they were influenced from the modest stands where those critically called attention to what he was doing and how he was doing, without obtaining, except for rare exceptions, other satisfaction that of being taken into account.

Nothing that happens today. Judt lacks perhaps explain the precision with which he does throughout the book that said, the reasons that led to the policy away from the cries from the critical intelligentsia, culminating in the clash . Not that there has been a divorce, but simply the unfolding of evolution by different paths, increasingly separated. Obviously I mean the thought of reporting, reasoning incorfomista uncomfortable and claiming a different view of things and decision-conceived otherwise. The interest in opposing or dissenting reflection is gone perhaps in a process of no return, you may not ever be restored (or in a long time.) It is true, however, that thinking is not pursued, there is no desire whatsoever because the power is gone, simply because it ends up being subsumed into the magma of the controversial opinion that the passage of time is responsible for dilution. is a free thinking, but their prospects and possibilities of incidence are becoming more limited. Has anyone heard in parliamentary debates, whatever level they are, clothing the arguments with opinions solvents extracted from ideas grounded in the rigor?

Prima, in short, the indifference to the harassment, animosity disdain for . Who cares. It is understood that his thoughts do not hurt, among other reasons, because the consistency of rigorous critical thinking in our day appears faded to the height gained by his two chief neutralizers: the deafening noise media, all-encompassing to stress environment using a language as simple as corrosive from which few escape, as most resorts to insults, lies and vulgarity, taking advantage of Razorfen of DTT, and the thought docile, submissive, which is forged in the cohort of "intellectuals" to salary, whose function is not to endorse other than with arguments cooked, which is in power, offering free cat but most of those who read or listen to repair it.