Between the logic of prohibition and permissiveness
28
Sep
The fact that the modern state is experiencing a crisis is easy to observe by the number of authoritarian
governments that grows all over the planet, especially in the West and the Americas, until a few years ago, a nationalist discourse in the United States of America and the return of some authoritarian governments in Latin America.
Education for democracy and for humanism has failed in modernity, as Peter Sloterdijk noted in Rules for the Human Park, which is nothing more than an answer (dialogue is good to be true) of Heidegger’s Letters on Humanism, where he asks : “What domesticates man if in all previous experiences with the education of mankind remained obscure who or what educates educators and for what? Or is it that the question of the care and training of the human being is no longer formulated in a pertinent way in the field of mere theories of domestication and education? “(Sloterdijk 2000).
Modern education is to the rights and duties of the state, even if the name has been erased, the famous “moral and civic education,” where civism and morality are referred to the state. In biblical logic, where agapic love is fundamental and not always easily understood by theological culture, especially when there is social and political polarization.
It is fundamental that relationships are established and that they have respect for the opinion and action of others, and this is faced with the maxim: “do not do to the other what you do not want done to you,” the so-called golden rule.
It is common to use the discourse of the other, for the lack of thought, it is not about plagiarism, only the use of maxims rather than something elaborate, as soon as something becomes evident. soon there are those who adopt the slogans, without always adopting the actions, but Jesus says to the disciples to those who used his name Mk 9: 39-40: “Do not prohibit it, for no one performs miracles in my name and then speaks ill of me. Whoever is not against us is in our favor.”
This should be the paraconsistent logic of dialogue, never the exclusivist logic: “who is not with us is against us”, but this logic has penetrated politics and society, so the speeches are becoming more authoritarian and more exclusive to those who do not according to a given flag.
What is illogical in any logical system is to consider the logic of hatred to be inclusive, humanism has not ended, a humanism that preaches the logic of state power has ended.
Sloterdijk, Peter. Regras para o parque humano (brazilian edition, Rules for the human park – a response to Heidegger’s letter on humanism). Trad. José Oscar de A. Marques. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2000
