Filozofski fragmenti

IŠČEKIVANJE VARVARA

Koga to očekujemo ovdje na agori?

Varvari danas će doći.

Otkud u Senatu ova nepokretnost?
Zašto sjede senatori, zakone ne kroje?

Zato jer varvari danas će doći.
Al’ zakone zašto ne donose senatori?
Kad varvari stignu, sa sobom donijeće svoje.

Zašto je tako rano ustao naš vladar?
i zašto na gradskoj kapiji stoji,
svečan, u odeždi sjajnoj i s krunom na glavi?

Zato jer varvari danas će doći.
I naš vladar izišo je
dar noseći pred njihovog vođu. Povelju
drži u ruci, pergamen gdje utisnuti
najveća su zvanja, titule i časti.

Zašto su izišli konzuli naši,
njih dva, i pretori u togama crvenim?
Zbog čega oni ametisti na rukama njinim,
od smaragda svi ti sjajni prstenovi?
Zbog čeg skupocjene štapove nose danas,
što rezbariše ih najbolji zlatari?

Zato jer varvari danas će doći,
a varvare zasjenjuju stvari.

Zašto nisu došli, ko obično, časni besjednici
da sačine govor i da kažu svoje?

Zato jer varvari danas će doći
a besjede, ljeporječje, varvarima dosadno je.

Al’ otkud najednom nelagodnost i pometnja?
(Kako ozbiljna su postala sva lica.)
Zašto tako brzo ulice i trgovi puste
i svak odlazi doma, opsjednut mislima?

Zato jer noć pade a varvara nema.
neki ljudi stigoše s granice,
tvrde da varvara nema više.

Bez varvara sada što će biti s nama?
Ti ljudi, na kraju, bjehu neko rješenje.

Konstantin Kavafi (1863-1933)
Preveo sa grčkog Slobodan Blagojević
Iz knjige Sabrane pjesme, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1988.

I u koji vi uvedete gledaoca u prvom kadru filma stihovima iz pesme Očekujući varvare Konstantina Kavafija: "Zašto se već smrklo, a varvari nisu došli/ A neki ljudi su stigli sa granice/ I rekli da varvara više nema/ Pa sad, šta ćemo bez varvara?/ Oni su ipak bili neko rešenje."
Metafora može da govori o odnosu Balkana prema ostatku Evrope, provincije prema gradu, siromašnih prema bogatima, a ja sam hteo da nađem moderne varvare koje društvo doživljava kao opasnost. Svako društvo ima monopol nad opasnošću. Zašto biste se vi udruživali ako nemate zajedničkog neprijatelja? Neprijatelj je uvek dobar izgovor da vladajuće strukture ostanu na vlasti, Orvelova 1984. priča o tome, pa i ove sada godine počivaju na strahu. Mediji ga stalno serviraju... Tražeći momke i devojke koji bi se transponovali u ono što sam ja zamislio na filmu, naišao sam na grupu koji su, kao i likovi u filmu, bili društveni otpadnici, tinejdžeri kojih se društvo stidi, i doživljava ih kao varvare.

William Murderface wrote:
Dobar! A pazi, u njegovo vreme su bili još daleko od industrijske hiperprodukcije bulšita.

Indy wrote:"The greatest feat of capitalism is to transmit its ideology to the working masses."

Kime (et al) ovo kruži po twitteru, zanima me ko je izvor (Google se nešto slabo snalazi).

David Byrne wrote:We would like to think of the web at a place of pluralism—a place where many voices, often at odds with one another, can be heard. A place of diversity. A place to find out what wonderful and unexpected stuff exists that is different than anything and everything you already know.

In reality, though, we can only speculate so much. The truth is that we’re moving into unchartered territory, and we need to become OK with that. We all want to see the future—it’s in our nature—but we simply can’t: The fundamental difficulty of innovation is that we have no data on what’s to come. It’s a perennial frustration, yet it’s also a source of vast possibility. We need to let go of traditional structures and allow for boundaries to loosen up and break down. A married Catholic capitalist, I may seem like the quintessence of the Old Guard. But with my judgment suspended and my mind opened, I’m not just ready for everything I know to be dismantled—I’m excited for it. And you should be, too.

[size=37]

THE BLOG
[size=46]Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)

[size=43] 7 hours ago | Updated 5 hours ago[/size]

[/size]

• 
  Martha C. Nussbaum Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, The University of Chicago
  

WIKIPEDIA
[size=43]Philosophy is pretty unpopular in America today. Marco Rubio says, with typical inelegance: "We need more welders and less philosophers." Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina also singles out philosophy as a discipline offering "worthless courses" that offer "no chances of getting people jobs." Across the nation there's unbounded adulation for the STEM disciplines, which seem so profitable. Although all the humanities suffer disdain, philosophy keeps on attracting special negative attention -- perhaps because in addition to appearing worthless, it also appears vaguely subversive, a threat to sound traditional values.[/size]
[size=43]Such was not always the case. Throughout its history in Europe, philosophy has repeatedly come in for abuse from the forces of tradition and authority. The American founding, however, was different: the founders were men of the Enlightenment, steeped in the ideas and works of Rousseau, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and the ancient Greeks and Romans -- especially Cicero and the Roman Stoics. As men of the Enlightenment they took pride in steering their course by reason and argument rather than unexamined tradition. Their intellectual independence and theoretical thoughtfulness served them well when it came to setting up a new nation. We've traveled a long way from those roots, and not in a good direction.[/size]
[size=43]On March 13, America lost one of the greatest philosophers this nation has ever produced. Hilary Putnam died of cancer at the age of 89. Those of us who had the good fortune to know Putnam as mentees, colleagues, and friends remember his life with profound gratitude and love, since Hilary was not only a great philosopher, but also a human being of extraordinary generosity, who really wanted people to be themselves, not his acolytes. But it's also good, in the midst of grief, to reflect about Hilary's career, and what it shows us about what philosophy is and what it can offer humanity. For Hilary was a person of unsurpassed brilliance, but he also believed that philosophy was not just for the rarely gifted individual. Like two of his favorites, Socrates and John Dewey (and, I'd add, like those American founders), he thought that philosophy was for all human beings, a wake-up call to the humanity in us all.[/size]
[size=43]Putnam was a philosopher of amazing breadth. As he himself wrote, "Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs in one." And in his prolific career Putnam, accordingly, elaborated detailed and creative accounts of central issues in an extremely wide range of areas in philosophy. Indeed there is no philosopher since Aristotle who has made creative and foundational contributions in all the following areas: logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, ethics, political thought, philosophy of economics. philosophy of literature.[/size]

“Who arrests revolutions half-way?,” Hugo asks. “The bourgeoisie? Why? Because the bourgeoisie is interest which has reached satisfaction. Yesterday it was appetite, to-day it is plenitude, tomorrow it will be satiety. … The attempt has been made[by the communists, he means], and wrongly, to make a class of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is simply the contented portion of the people. The bourgeois is the man who now has time to sit down. A chair is not a caste. … Selfishness is not one of the divisions of the social order.” This could be questioned, in certain respects: but it remains very useful for understanding our world — that is, our bourgeois world. Grouped around the narrow oligarchy, there exist plenty of other interests that have “reached satisfaction.”

ostap bender wrote:nije bas za ovde ali evo

http://www.thenation.com/article/benedict-andersons-view-of-nationalism/