In a post below I defined myself as a free man. I hesitated before writing that phrase for I knew the risks that it could sound pretentious and pedantic. Truth cannot be served indiscriminately. The communication of truth is a selective and delicate affair.I would now like to elaborate on the idea of a free man or woman, but I do not want this time to run the risk of using myself as an example. Rather, I will use as examples two of the most controversial commentators of the blogosphere : zazie and Euroliberal. There are several free people in the blogosphere. I only select these two because they are probably some of the most well-known and stimulating.
Just watch their comments. You might think many different things about them, but one thing is for sure: their comments are not determined or conditioned by any kind of interests - the interests to keep their jobs, to serve their political parties, their churches, their ideologies, their soccer teams, their own families (if they have any of these) or their own persons. When they speak and write they do so utterly out of their own consciences. That is what makes them free. As Alexandre Herculano once wrote: "Freedom is the truth of conscience, like God".
One question can be asked: do free people have the truth? Not necessarily. I am prepared to argue that free people might be as wrong as unfree people. What distinguishes free people is their commitment to search for truth - not truth itself. In Herculano's words truth is God's whereas freedom is men's attempt to reach God's truth - the conscience's truth.
It is this serious attempt to reach truth that distinguishes free from unfree people. You might argue that you often disagree with zazie and Euroliberal. Surely you do. But that is precisely the greatest benefit of having free people around you, the possibility of disagreeing with them. From free people you get an inner, thoughtful, independent view of the world which you can contrast with your own and judge for yourself. Would you see any benefit in listening for a second time to the member of a political party repeating the party's orthodoxy?
Free people do not have necessarily to agree with each other, but they usually do respect each other. This is so because there is the common feeling among them that they are searching for the same thing, even when, and specially when, their opinions are different. For free people it is their common destination that matters - truth -, not the particular ways they choose or those that circumstances of life lead them to follow.
Let me give you an example. Euroliberal and I do have different views on the euro. The reason is that there are too many variables beyond our control or forecast that a final, definitive statement on the issue - that is, truth - seems impossible to reach. I must admit, though, that I have greatly moderated my opposition to the euro, and some of my skepticism about the EU, after reading the many commentaries of Euroliberal on the issue. My view on the euro, and other common EU policies, tended to be determined by my condition as an economist, thus by considerations such as unemployment, inflation and interest rates. Euroliberal brought to my attention a much more important consideration: peace, European peace.
One question can be asked: do free people have the truth? Not necessarily. I am prepared to argue that free people might be as wrong as unfree people. What distinguishes free people is their commitment to search for truth - not truth itself. In Herculano's words truth is God's whereas freedom is men's attempt to reach God's truth - the conscience's truth.
It is this serious attempt to reach truth that distinguishes free from unfree people. You might argue that you often disagree with zazie and Euroliberal. Surely you do. But that is precisely the greatest benefit of having free people around you, the possibility of disagreeing with them. From free people you get an inner, thoughtful, independent view of the world which you can contrast with your own and judge for yourself. Would you see any benefit in listening for a second time to the member of a political party repeating the party's orthodoxy?
Free people do not have necessarily to agree with each other, but they usually do respect each other. This is so because there is the common feeling among them that they are searching for the same thing, even when, and specially when, their opinions are different. For free people it is their common destination that matters - truth -, not the particular ways they choose or those that circumstances of life lead them to follow.
Let me give you an example. Euroliberal and I do have different views on the euro. The reason is that there are too many variables beyond our control or forecast that a final, definitive statement on the issue - that is, truth - seems impossible to reach. I must admit, though, that I have greatly moderated my opposition to the euro, and some of my skepticism about the EU, after reading the many commentaries of Euroliberal on the issue. My view on the euro, and other common EU policies, tended to be determined by my condition as an economist, thus by considerations such as unemployment, inflation and interest rates. Euroliberal brought to my attention a much more important consideration: peace, European peace.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário