At first glance, there is a pronounced mismatch between the clash of civilizations and the end of the story. The entire immanentist (immanence) is incompatible with the recognition of exteriority contained in the clash of civilizations. The clash of civilizations recognizes that all is not yet happened, but it will happen after its action. This contradiction is still perhaps not in the sense that the clash of civilizations would play as a corrective recognizing the error of the end of the story while trying to promote it in another form.
Taking the concept of clash of civilizations as a key concept of the strategy of war against terrorism and NOM, it is the recognition of a flaw in the end of the story insofar as it purports to perfect the end of history - and implicitly considers that the end of the story is a goal not only possible but desirable. A patch to correct what he comes and confirms Knights. The clash of civilizations Knights end of the story.
If the clash of civilizations is chronologically before the end of the story popularized by Fukuyama, the end goal of history preexist in the clash of civilizations. From Hegel to Nietzsche through Marx (whose Communist is an end of history), it is about creating an alternative) the failure of the immanent in the reality as it is. Idealism is to introduce a change in the real, that Marx goes through an ideological shift that culminates in Nietzsche and the project you smoky contradictory ideological mutation in the reality as it is.
Hegel's idealism also proposes a project that is both more rational than the ideal nieztcshéen post-romantic and at the same time expresses already the beginnings of recovery of idealism and Platonic dialectic by a design that encloses the Hegelian infinity in the irrational (in the manner of Descartes, but deeper). If Hegel presents a project that Nieztcshe less delusional, it should be noted that the failure of his political project (totalitarianism to the extent of his total grasp of reality) is nominally taken over by postmodern clique of experts affiliated with the British Empire (one Fukuyama represents a significant example).
These people try to correct the end of the story set in a sardonic and evil abyss: the end of the story is originally a correction of the classic story. The end of history and revised offers as a new inflection liberalism terminal (ultraliberalism inspired by the Mont Pelerin Society) would be the real end of history. The defeat at the end of the story is predictable from Hegel's dialectic is irrational, but the correction of the end of the story is even more wrong. Moreover, when we read Fukuyama, one can only be shocked by the simplicity of the subject, as if the end of this apparent end of history overlapped with the end of a Huntington: not the depth, but propaganda.
Clash of Civilizations confirms death of civilization and replacing it with the world of desire, which is to create a fantasy enemy to perpetuate his ideals of immanence. The use of the term civilization contains an ambiguous sense, since it contains a colonial connotation (even racist) and a fairly neutral connotation. The colonial connotation implies a inegalitarianism between civilizations, when the neutral connotation is devoid of value judgments.
Although he denies it, the clash of civilizations contains imperialism and colonialism to prevent, though latent in it, since it implies that the Western model of liberal invoice (or secular) is the model. In a strong connotation, the clash of civilizations implies that we should eradicate altogether Civilizations other than the Western liberal model. But in a more moderate (perverse), the model implies that other civilizations can convert to higher liberal model, like the Western model of Christianity rose to liberalism.
The superiority of liberalism on the religious model plus the superiority of the religious ideology. Should be identified behind this statement is confined to the ideological imprint of the immanent or the superiority of the completeness of desire on the religious transcendentalist. The liberalism that tames one way or another Islam means that monotheism is at a disadvantage relative to desire.
civilization becomes plain: the global civilization (globalized), it is also the civilization full of desire, which is relative to the multiplicity of religious civilizations. The only unifying civilization, the only sense in which there is only one civilization, the civilizations of desire, as opposed to the multiplicity of cultures and religious transcendentalist.
However, production of the theory of clash of civilizations indicates a finding of failure in relation to the finding of hegemony Sustainable triumph of the liberal model and unilateral, including the theory of the end of the story. In the end of history propagated by Fukuyama, the man reached a new stage where the story is outdated and inferior class. But the theory of the end of history would render the joint theory of clash of civilizations (from Anglo-Saxon circles close to the unilateral liberalism).
theory of clash of civilizations implicitly recognizes that something is wrong in beautiful harmony liberal. The problem is completeness: immanentism only works if completeness is guaranteed. But the completeness of desire has a flaw: it does not affect the field of desire still exists. Worse, not only this alien existence of a negative coefficient affects the completeness of desire, but it affects so intensified by the destruction it causes.
Completeness is negated by the fact that she can not get rid of a piece of alien existence. So, what is foreign to the desire competitive desire, or just destroy it. The introduction of the clash of civilizations acts as a correction of the end of the story. Is recognized that the end of history is not totally the end of history, is that desire is not quite complete. We need an external enemy and imaginary desire to continue its full existence. That flaw
externality completeness acts like a contradiction: a sign that completeness is a myth and that the completeness of desire does not correspond to the completion of the finitude of reality, but the production of the law of stronger. This fittest inevitably drift towards failure. Desire is sure to crumble as a model of civilization. The total failure of desire is contained in its program that links the myth with all the political totalitarianism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment