Manichaean and ambivalence: impossible dialogue
30
Jul
The reason modern society deepens the cultural and spiritual crisis,
and it is the contemporary economics and politics and not separate these is that we are still cheering for both teams: the good of the team, we do not know who it is, and of evil, which are the “other side”, and in the end, those who suffer is society as a whole.
Manichaeism is the religious name for it, and the political ambivalence name, both its foundations and orthodoxies, are fighting the other side, and who fight alongside the men and women who lose rights, jobs and often their lives?
Manichaean was a philosopher of the third century of the Christian era, who followed Augustine of Hippo to convert, was dualistic religious syncretistic his doctrine originated in Persia and was widespread in the Roman Empire (AD III to IV AD), which is based on affirm the existence of a cosmic conflict between the kingdom of light (Good) and the shadow (evil).
This to say that matter and flesh in the realm of shadows, and say that the man was imposed a duty to help the Well of victory through ascetic practices.
Ambivalence is a concept already in the political aspect, runs various philosophers, but its most eminent thinker Zygmunt Bauman is, it means the simultaneous existence, and with the same intensity, two feelings or two ideas regarding the same thing and that They oppose each other.
The dialogy is just the opposite to these two moral reasoning, is put on the skin of the other, try to feel what another feels, contemporary philosophy that goes in this direction is Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel Levinas and all the speaking of the Other.
