Why do so many speak of nihilism as a historical movement is recent, interesting, albeit a minor one? When it comes to minor , we speak of which is official recognition, that is to say that there are so apparent and recognized. The main criterion for recognition is self-consciousness, is the fact that recognition implies that it is consciousness to recognize itself. Principle of self-recognition, which we consider that an identity is true when it is recognized (endorsed) by some. Plus the idea is accepted, it is more important. According to this criterion, nihilism is a minor idea.
This way of looking at things can be a problem of consistency if it is realized that the main religious doctrine throughout the world, the transcendentalism, works on the idea that the principle of the world (called the monotheistic God) is hidden and invisible, at least according to the criteria for recognition. Moreover, the fact that man discovers new ideas continuously, throughout its history, implies that the structure of reality is not given once and for all. Otherwise, the history of ideas will end with its founder and creative ideas would be impossible. The story of the divine, to stick to this major explanatory hypothesis, indicates that the criterion for autoreconnaissance is not enough and that instead the real is formed so that it is never made once and for all - a complete and final, open and clear, uniform, unilateral.
Reality is not defined implies that reality is not definable. The idea that one can judge the value of an idea based on its historical representation, its recognition is false because it denies the principle of discovery and the principle of explanation. It simply denies the reality principle that reality is not formed on a finished model and defined, homogeneous and linear. The real is formed according to a model Enversa or heterogeneity. History as a phenomenon of change is not possible under this model. Not only can deny that the hidden hand is the most important quality of the real, but the argument that nihilism is a movement minor is valid if it is given precisely the exclusive value of what is visible, recognized and history.
If we remember that God is hidden, we must conclude that what is important is not visible as such, the visible suffering necessarily imperfect and change - especially as the demand for real be explicit as opposed to the visible expliicte. When a discovery occurs, especially in an area well sectorized as a branch of science, we realize that a fundamental aspect of reality had not been seen, although this is some really simple and obvious . The discovery of Einstein could be summarized and an ontological point of view: that space and time are not a priori .
It would pour into the prejudice that estimate that the discovery of Einstein's physics is final. Instead it is temporary and will one day be revised as Einstein revised the physical discovery attributed to Newton and Kepler. This idea of finding temporary and that real progress means never delivers its definitive meaning, but instead it is incomplete in its structure. So, what exists is not the whole of reality, far from it, and what does not exist is not consistent with what is hidden (the engine that is hidden).
What is the difference between the illusory and the hidden? The illusion is that which will never exist, when the hidden is what exists without recognition and that can happen to recognition. The structural relationship between the illusory and the hidden indicates the importance of the hidden ontological. There may be more of an illusion that expresses the hidden structure of reality is not uniform or homogeneous. As to the difference between the illusory and the hidden is that there are hidden when the illusory never exist.
This way of thinking does not mean that we take that which does not exists, because the difference is materially from the field and that of the hidden false (in the Aristotelian sense). According to this definition altogether traditional, nihilism can be quite a way to get the real still not perceived as important (yet hidden). This is not a relevant argument that argued that nihilism has resulted in its productions visible - that men recognize him.
Moreover, the definition of nihilism is to rely on denial. Denial sets the inclination to deny that reality is as it is. Nihilism designate the rejection of reality as it is ( Enversa ) to focus reality as it appears (united and homogeneous). If reality was immutable and stable, this inclination to denial regress slowly - have long since disappeared - only to disappear altogether. Denial tends to deny the part of change that emerged in the real, or not to take into consideration the reality in its fundamental dimension of change. Denial will not change in the sense that the metaphysical aspiration ( mésontologique ) of nihilism is to promote the same while trying to remove the change to expel him from the world of man.
If you look at the decisive step and emblematic of Aristotle, we realize:
1) Aristotle speaks very little of nothing (or non-being);
2) But Aristotle gives a fundamental non-being as be explained by non-being.
This paradoxical attitude of Aristotle (the non-being is as unspeakable as capital) illustrates what and why nihilism nihilism based on denial. If Aristotle speaks very little of nothing, so he places a crucial, because it considers that there is nothing to say nothing. Nothing to say about anything. The is nothing but a type that mésexistence nihilates any type of existence and all types of speech. There would be no objection to this approach of Aristotle if it was not based on the logical impossibility: can indeed promote the contradiction within the real. Can not promote the destruction.
Yet these calamitous results nihilism that runs everything and that is why Aristotle proposes a strategy that gives coherence to the nihilism of speech to be limited. Suffice it to repel the inconsistency of a screen - in the non-being. This position may seem very promising at first is not tenable since it proposes a scheme of real untenable. Any work Arsitote to corroborate the non-being as unsaid. Not that Aristotle considers the issue of non-being is secondary, but it is unspeakable to nihilism.
As Wittgenstein says after him in a vein quite near his own, as Wittgenstein advocates the concept of mathematical ideas and opposed to Neoplatonism antiplatoniciennes enthusiast Gödel, what we can not speak, one must be silent (it must be counter). The question is: do we speak does not non-being because it is not important (secondary) - or do not talk about it does not because there is nothing to say ? The answer is obvious when we realize that Aristotle explains the multiplicity than by the multiplicity (and unprovable incoherent) of non-being. The importance of nihilism based on the denial of nihilism - the unspoken.
Aristotle makes nihilism compatible with the standard ontological Platonist, who destroyed mésontologies sophists or atoms. Let there be no mistake: it makes it in fact consistent with the mutation from polytheism to monotheism. History of Aristotelianism touch of Christianity demonstrates that reconciliation. But even assuming that capital is based on the hidden God, and the major hypothesis of nihilism based on the denial and the unspoken. If we do not talk about nihilism or if he gives interesting historical importance if secondary is poorly defined because nihilism.
If nihilism comes down to an attitude of disillusionment and hatred of the world, then this nihilism is not nihilism, but pessimism. Nihilism is often a form of hedonism that wants a social gender less repulsive. But if nihilism expresses the denial of the real heterogeneous and homogeneous approach to reality, then this attitude is much older - and it turns atavistic. Contrary to the idea that the first inclination would be religious in a traditional sense (transcendentalist) It appears that nihilism is the first reaction of al man facing the mystery of the real scandal.
The original man discovers with horror that he does not know and that knowledge will be long and arduous. The man is desperate to discover that knowledge will become. Why the current attitude is to pour into the darkness (the cult of ignorance) and the side reaction in the worship of knowledge is an opposition based on the same foundation: the validation of the real finite and fixed.
When it is not known, it is tempting to subscribe to the real fixed and finite because it delivers the knowledge of reality. This is the movement explanatory nihilism and the opposition to nihilism is thus defined as second. It is the religious in the traditional sense which manifests itself transcendentalist and contain a common view of biblical myth of Genesis to Plato and Christianity (and in Islamic Monotheism). Nihilism is more of a movement rather contemporary and secondary is the very origin of human thought. It is found quite easily in Aristotle, hidden under the finiteness of the real and the unspoken non-being, or Spinoza, embedded in the incréation undefined central or completeness of desire (rendering superfluous any other type of ontological research ).
0 comments:
Post a Comment