Книги по разным темам Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |   ...   | 27 |

But if we are not fortunate enough to remain distant and stay in the will of doing philosophy, but being nothing but an apprentice without his own wings, we can fall in the servility to power. Clearly philosophers can find a place in the world of utility. Their universalising and general way of thinking can be an excellent tool for certain purposes. Thus, enslaved and marked by interest, we can become the best apologists for no matter what idea, we can become sophists allied to gravediggers. Since we forget about truth and virtue, with this ability of managing reasons and minds anything Carlos David Garca Mancilla can have convincing fundaments. Anything can seem to be just and justified, anything, even war and poverty.

These sophists are similar to that Nazi soldier who, after his duties in the crematorium, went back home and played Chopin in a piano, feeling delighted and deified in his demons. The distance between the beauty of the music and that wicked character is as enormous as notorious is the contrast.

The same happens between the sophist and the true philosopher. Thus, these sophist-philosophers are servants of power, wealth, interests and slaves of themselves. They forget that the trees of life and thought are not distant or different; that speaking about the just and the goodness without thinking about them up to the last consequence and without being good and just themselves is the death of this freedom and of philosophy itself. Anyone can apply his abilities to any ideal or end without thinking and analysing the moral consequences, and he would keep on being what he is and being able of doing what he does, but not the philosopher.

What are we philosophers Proud debtors, servile freethinkers and pleased mystery carriers. We disregard making, thinking and living philosophy. Not even freely have we renounced to freedom. Freedom is not pure irresolution and indifference, but, maybe, the possibility of giving the law to oneself. To shape oneself, like a mass of clay, with the hands of oneТs self-conscious thought. Thus, philosophising has no direction until its own consciousness determines one. This is the pure thought, the beautiful thought, the thought that is appropriate to its self; it, without ends or prejudices, tries to bring to light a true basis for life and existence or, at least, a provisional one. The first step of philosophy is thus destruction; taking anything for granted. The human world stands on assumptions, prejudices and simulacrums, on immense veils, which take the place of truth and virtue. We should remember Nietzsche and approach the world with a hammer in the thought. LetТs first philosophise by hammering. Not, of course, with the hard and rough strike of the metal on the rock, but with the chisel like the archaeologist or the sculptor; gentle and rigorous, but also destructor. It is essential to overthrow prejudices and ideologies to be free. Break apart the idols that power has imposed and that determine our thought and life. Just then it is possible to start the reconstruction out of the wreckage; a positive proposal emerging from life and thought. And this action is not a matter of revolution and change, it cannot be; it is something that should dwell in the heart of the philosopher in every moment. Being just and good is normally a matter of obeying the laws, of following certain pre-established values.

Weather they are good or not, they may be solved according to some other given perspective. Dogmatism rules the actions, and maybe it has to. But the laws always find a moment where they become unfair or new situations which mankind has never faced arise; then we reach the limits of the fundaments that formerly supported us. Rarely someone has descended up to 20 A Defence of Philosophy the lack of fundaments and achieved an answer out of the void. Philosophy inhabits these limits, and rarely someone asks for its answer.

Philosophy exists because mankind does; because the ultimate questions of life and existence are inescapable and always provisional, and the wisest man of all can only propose one course in the middle of an infinite and undiscovered land. Totality, the topic of philosophy, will never be understood even after crossing every possible path. To philosophise is also to assume and to know clearly the boundaries of our thought without renouncing to walk through an endless road. Many philosophers have reached a system, a complete explanation of reality; but like every dogmatism, it will find its limits and weaknesses. That is philosophy, a denial and reinforcement of its past steps. That should be also the philosopher.

LetТs remember about Socrates, who only knew about his lack of knowledge, and that every step he made led him to a clearer knowledge of his ignorance. The investigations into the goodness and the virtue, the meaning of existence and the essence of mankind are not absurd just because of their elusive nature, but they are inescapable. LetТs remember, also, that Socrates was a public man and not a hermit that he went to the public places questioning the others and himself about the truth and the goodness, exhorting them to worry about virtue and not about fame, money or power.

LetТs remember that he wrote nothing because philosophy dwells upon the thought which loves to think; too free to be contained in books or ultimate pronouncements. LetТs remember to live philosophy, which in its free vitality always gives away its self to others.

Bibliography Jaspers, K., Einfhrung in die Philosophie. R. Piper, Mnchen, 1953.

Aurelio M., Meditaciones. Alianza, Madrid, 1985.

Nietzsche, F., El ocaso de los dolos. Tusquets, Madrid, 1998.

Ortega y Gasset, J., Qu es filosofa Espasa Calpe Mexicana, Mxico, 2000.

Platn, Dilogos. Gredos, Madrid, 1981.

Privitera, H., Why Should One Be Born Before Time: Equal Birth Rights for All. Galactica University Press, Beautiful-land and Aplaceforme, 2008.

Theoretical Discourse on the Challenges of Black Intellectuals in Post-Modern America Tunde Adeleke Abstract Over four decades ago, in his seminal publication, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual (1967), the late Harold Cruse bemoaned the failure of black intellectuals to project, Сan autonomous ethnicТ vision. He criticized black intellectuals for not assuming effective leadership of the racial and ethnic challenges confronting blacks. CruseТs book helped focus public attention, and ignited debates, on black intellectuals. A major challenge has to do with determining primary responsibility of black intellectuals, and the nature and character of intellectual productions. In other words, should race be the determinant of responsibility, or should that responsibility be to a greater and higher national cause Should priority be to the demand of the academy for intellectual rigor and production or to the demand of the black struggle for ideological leadership As black intellectuals, how should they respond to black popular culture, or more precisely, expressions of black cultural resistance such as Gangsta rap and Hip hop This paper attempts to addresses these questions through a theoretical analysis of a select group of black intellectuals whose writings underscore the tension between the conflicting demands of the academy and the Black struggle (Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Manning Marable, and Molefi Asante).

Key Words: Grounding, Eurocentric, instrumentalist, gangsta, hip-hop, Afrocentrism, universalism, objectivity.

***** 1. Introduction In his Prison Notebooks (1977), Italian Marxist Political theorist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) proposed two conceptions of intellectual leadership - traditional and organic. The former is attached to, and in cohort with the dominant ruling>

Furthermore, as a product of bourgeois environment, the black intellectual must first be emancipated from the entrapment of bourgeois culture, indeed from what Rodney characterized as the СBabylonian captivityТ of bourgeois society. He suggested two ways of accomplishing this - by vigorously attacking negative Eurocentric and hegemonic ideas and theories, and by fully identifying and grounding with the people, and in the process, undergoing what Cabral called, СA spiritual reconversion of mentalities.ТRodney rejected the doctrine of Сknowledge for knowledge sake.Т Knowledge is useful only to the degree that it advances the cause of liberation. It is the ability and willingness to use knowledge in the cause of freedom that distinguishes a GI from an armchair theoretician. This commission of>Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |   ...   | 27 |    Книги по разным темам