Saturday, 16 December 2017 | News today: 0

Enough with the triviality!

Jovanka-Kepeska-kolumna

Prof. Jovanka Kepeska PhD

The spiritual atmosphere here is unhealthy. The liberal behavior is poorly understood. Everything is told with quarrelsome attitude, just to say the contrary. The public statements in the media, the press conferences, the conversations between people include many manipulations, lies, attacks on people, gossip. All in idle progress, threatening the atmosphere in people’s lives and creating a bad image of society. Instead of arguments in dealing with different views, the level descends to trivialities, small talk, chitchat.

We cannot avoid expressing great dissatisfaction with such practices and take responsibility for the situation in which, more or less, we are participants.

You might say, everything is permitted in a democracy. You might say it is inter-party struggle, so everything is permitted. It’s about realizing different interests that justify the means in a political struggle, so everything is permitted. However, not everything is permitted in organized societies. With a view to accepting and taking them seriously, the public opposes the empty positions, which cannot be objective, and rationalizes them by reacting in the public, the media, the political parties, the citizens in general.

Our social essence is divided. Not only by ethnic, cultural and religious grounds, but also by political grounds. Of course, it must be emphasized that the differences between views are useful on all grounds. And they are the foundation upon which society progresses. The process of a society’s progress requires their recognition as a political-cultural approach. Thus, one can learn the values and the way how to achieve success.

The worst division, however, remains linked to the change of consciousness, overcoming the old consciousness. Because during the social change, it is the most difficult to change, i.e. it is the last to change as end to the changes in society and harsh changes in consciousness. It should become liberatory for the processes and stop being their hindrance.

People talk about tolerance necessary to be carried toward different opinions. People talk about dialogue. But, absolutely, it must be underlined that dialogue is not a contemplative tolerance for diversity of opinions.

Because dialogue is the ratio between the interlocutors. In a philosophical sense, through dialogue, they recognize the contradictions in the statements so that they could be overcome. Thus the debate is taking place as theoretically conscious and practical, politically and ethically responsible for the transformation of a society in its segments.

Really, democracy lies upon different views and the right to express publicly and to articulate politically. That “you’re right, but I’m right too,” is the starting point of democracy to overcome monist access and viewing. As a starting point it is absolutely advanced. But it is the initial basis to begin with, but it cannot be expected to stand on it. And when it comes to political and cultural and ethnic diversity. In the Macedonian language there is the word understanding where the conversation is going as something that is useful and overcoming. And it requires discernment in different views from ours. And that it is a way to have a conversation. And without the investment of such an effort, the conversation would be counter-productive.

That is why the expected democratic criticism is versatile, really rich in content, material and critical discussion. Reviews exceeding with awareness to finish off the old situation that exists as a material basis. To perform the transformation of the old situation into a new. In doing so, of course, it is not enough for the thought to strive for realization, but reality itself must press towards the thought.

Such criticism does have something to say. Not just to say something superficially, just as harsh criticism of everything existing, but criticism that clears things. Affirmative criticism, not only negation. Theoretical and dialogical reasoning, arguing with contradictory thesis for the theoretical dimension of the truth and for the true synthesis for human survival. The criticism of a whole event (such as historical) to obtain a measure for functional reviews of a particular sector, detail, region. To overcome the antagonisms arising from the social conditions of the lives of the individuals.

That is considering what has been and is burdened with the finding as a real possibility, which summarizes in itself all content trends of the past, that is not past, just because it was, because all it was today, will be there tomorrow too. Instead of seeing only failure in the past or poorly understood future. Criticism without primacy of the past and primacy of the future. Criticism of the past for criticizing the present, and thus criticizing the future.