[ad_1]
The question that describes 2021 may have been Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, who asked Jesus in the Gospel of John: What is truth? In fact, all the most talked about stories of this difficult year from vaccination to false stories were at the end of “true”. Through modern life, we seemed to have lost the values that were the foundation of our teams in the past. This is not wrong. Philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger pointed out that moral values are being undermined by strong structures in history. These designs, whether scientific or economic, are always made by time and teams that guarantee results. So as we enter the new year, the real question remains: who can we trust in 2022?
We must stop pretending to be immature and seek an answer in history. But in doing so, we cannot leave our lives in the hands of experts alone, even though techno-science languages require a deep knowledge of the highest level of education.
As citizens, we all have a right to share what scientists have discovered and learned about human nature, although we cannot do the same thing again and again. The same is true of the COVID-19 vaccine: any honest and coherent argument in this regard should be considered seriously. Experts cannot and should not ignore the concerns, questions and disputes of citizens on issues that directly affect their lives with the idea of ”stand aside and let us do our job”. Just as the opinions of economists alone were not sufficient to solve the 2008/9 financial crisis, their findings alone are not the only ones that can solve this catastrophic epidemic. Such financial or health problems require feedback from a wide range of people who are able to provide meaningful answers elsewhere. We call these agents “government agencies”.
In many cases, the working modes of democracy are far more painful than those in power. The “Reason of the Technocracy” model is an example of western history that has had many successes but has opened the way to countless and unjust violence. While most scientists are attracted to this belief, science cannot replace democracy or religion. The only solution, then, is to find the truth that is missing in human society.
If “the truth,” as the philosopher Richard Rorty puts it, is “what your contemporaries allow you to remain silent about,” then certainty in the human world is not eternal but the result of modern human agreements. This is evident in the case of the professional RNA messenger pioneers who allowed the development of several advanced COVID-19 vaccines. Astronomer Katalin Kariko and immunologist Drew Weissman struggled for years to raise funds for mRNA research, and the importance of their work was recognized by a team of scientists only after the mRNA vaccine using COVID-19 changed the course of the epidemic. How can we avoid neglecting such scientific advances, or making similar changes in society and in the future political opportunity?
It can not be so simple: the use of communication technologies, social networking and the social atom has left us divided and self-centered, making cooperation an old-fashioned notion. Our lack of recognition is so depressing – and destructive – that in his book An American Utopia (2016), well-known sociologist Fredric Jameson proposed the creation of a parallel system: a military force made up of all citizens. The challenge is to create a real community group to start building another, democratic group. Those who, like Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, tried to provide the first equipment to make such a move, however, were quickly shut down and kept quiet, asking questions about the feasibility of such a project.
Therefore, the 2022 mantra should be: let’s get back in the group! We must rely on ourselves, our natural ability to live together, the “zoon politikon” (political animal) we are. We must, as the philosopher Paul K Feyerabend put it, “conquer more”, the unchanging weight of life, against all the means that establish the technical world of the global market. Quoting author and philosopher Gilbert K Chesterton: “A madman is not a person who has lost a cause but a person who has lost everything but a cause”.
Nothing new can be created: we must start with what we already have, and what we already have. In 1999, urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg wrote a memorable book entitled The Great Good Place on “Restaurants, Coffee Shop, Bookstore, Bath Hall, Hairdresser, and Other Public Hearts”. The message of the book was simple: “The third place – where people can gather, set aside work and housing concerns, and socialize for the sake of good association and enjoyable conversation – is at the heart of social and cultural life. The foundations of democracy.” And this message is still valid – this is the place to make people (yes, as clear as the “life-making” John Keats mentions in his famous letter). On a more complex list, you can add a church, a mosque, a synagogue to the cultural groups on the list, and why? Also political parties, alliances … it all goes away. Even before the plague, the land was lost. But now, as we struggle to get back to another culture, innovators like Mark Zuckerberg are offering new programs (“Multiversum”) that will no doubt divide us. As a result, Oldenburg’s “third place” is more important than ever.
Regardless of the different meanings and forms that can be adopted in different cultures, “dialogue” is at the center of the human mind. The Internet is a magic bullet – it has the potential to spread much of the discussion around the world. But it will not move the face, smell, hands, touch, common sense of place that adds meaning to the conversation. “The urgency of social networking,” as American philosopher Judith Butler put it, “allows vitriol forms that do not support intellectual conflict.” That is why in the new year, in order to get back on track, we need to have good, personal conversations, that is, we need to get those conversations back to the places we lost.
This discussion has more ideas than praxis. The recent rise in inflation and the subsequent economic crisis seem to have hit the corner for many of us. So how can our “association” help us?
It certainly will not give us an answer, but it can prepare the place for a universal solution – a solution based on a sense of justice and proper sharing of sacrifices.
The plague has asked us to reconsider our culture – it has shown us that, in the face of this kind of adversity, our real way of survival and solidarity. Indeed, we now know that the species will continue to emerge and the epidemic will not end until those in the Global South, too, have a chance to get vaccinated.
So can we still trust our government agencies in 2022?
If we can, it is not only because of the guarantees they continue to provide but also because it supports the networks we call the organization. Is this the public opinion?
Yes, and no – because against the powerful vulgate of the well-known “no other way”, our history shows that there is no reality, but a complex mix of interpretations that reflect many of the world’s visions. What we should not rely on in 2022 is a real-life case that supports the story of a one-sided state.
The views expressed in this article are for the benefit of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Al Jazeera.
[ad_2]
Source link
