Publicado: Jue Ene 21, pm Registrado: Sab Ene 31, pm Mensajes: Estoy leyendo un libro del filosofo Michel Onfray en donde expone una historiografia de la filosofia, desde los griegos hasta hoy. El analiza como la escuela de platon y las filosofias del espiritu dominaron exitosamente todo el pensamiento occidental, en desmedro de otras escuelas anteriores o presrocaticas, como el hedonismo, los cinicos o los epicureos. Esto genero un desprecio por lo humano, por el cuerpo y los sentidos. El cristianismo saco provecho de esta filosofia, rechazando todo el plano terrenal, el pecado esta en la carne, en la materia grosera y la salvacion esta alla arriba, en el cielo en lo incorporeo.
|Published (Last):||4 September 2016|
|PDF File Size:||20.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Having read the book, I consider Onfray not so much a philosopher than a deep thinker - for me, a philosopher has to be more than just an critical moral abolitionist. Onfray is a philosopher in the same sense that Richard Dawkins is a philosopher, but I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins so perhaps this is a cultural issue Dawkins is at least able to cherish monogamous family and religious music.
When I first heard about Michel Onfray, I thought: this guy is talking my kind of ethics. Life is richer when it is open to the free intercourse of ideas, and it seems to me that his ideas, by defying platonic forms, border on the thanatophilic.
Perhaps this is a little presumptuous given that it is my first reading of his work, and it is possible that something was lost in translation. The preface and intro was 65 pages long, The body of the text itself is barely twice that length pages. This is a cardinal sin. Onfray does not use technical jargon in his writings as other philosophers do - he is easy to understand. How a man of his stature can stand to be the national treasure of a culture that has not yet completely divorced itself from the Plato-Christian heritage he detests is beyond comprehension.
As someone who likes art galleries and religious spaces, there is something tragic about hearing a great person compare contemporary galleries to religious spaces that "often complacently exhibit nothing but the defects of our time". Such a comment is like Deleuze and Guattari critiquing capitalism only to intimate that gold standard would be a superior monetary system. One receives the impression that Michel Onfray has set the bar too high for even himself to adhere to.
It is no wonder that he dislikes Freud and Lacan. It was once suggested that philosophy is "a private bell for inexplicable needs". As a philosopher, he should appreciate that art is like belief that which is, in some fashion, framed distinctively. A gallery is a frame itself, within which a person might engage with a sculpture in relation to the space around it. Exhibitionism is sufficient to create an artistic moment arguably it is a necessary condition and is a limiting factor for art movements themselves.
That said, the book was peppered with instances of positive philosophical reflection. For example: "Art history is shaped by epistemological ruptures. These shifts prepare movements and trends. His is a relatively plain-speaking philosophy, unlike most continental post-Wittgensteinian philosophers, and he takes a leaf out of the 19th century English utilitarian tradition.
Foucault could use language beautifully to convey the gist of his ideas: "If the Being of Language continues to shine ever brighter on the horizon of Man, is this not an indication that this whole modern configuration is about to topple?
For him, hedonism explained the deprivations of Christianity, it is everything that Christianity is not. And yet there is little appreciation here of the enriching influence Christianity can have to believers, nor any alternative depictions of resilient hedonic moral institutions for our present or post-Christian society. No alternatives to marriage or funerals, for instance.
I was hoping for so much else from this author: the title of the work sounded so inspiring. As someone who was for a brief eternity powerless to exist, I can fully appreciate the grounds for his nihilism. Though my present philosophy of physical existence is unified under the Ladyman and Ross theory of real patterns probably the sort of Platonic notion that Onfray fears , I recognise that this is only a theory and that it is also possible that there is no fundamental reality except the sense that we make when we cohere observations and perceptions.
I suffer less when I am under the impression that Platonic forms exist than when I am at a loss for fundamental explanations of reality. So there we are. I had hoped to find this book compelling but instead found it vaguely repulsive.
That said, reading it was sort of cathartic. I thought my nihilism was concerning, but though Onfray has not clearly prescribed any better way of living he has at least put my intellectual narcissism into perspective. Meet the man whose "cynicism is a kind of anti-Platonism".
El hecho de que el hombre sea un animal finito no significa que pueda prescindir de lo sagrado. Su capacidad de simbolizar y ritualizar lo incomprensible y monstruoso augura su continuidad en el tiempo. Onfray utiliza argumentos escasamente originales. Incapaz de convivir con el otro, se ha aliado con el poder temporal para consumar su exterminio. Hay que anticiparse a los tiempos y adaptarse a lo que venga. Las tres religiones constituyen la mayor amenaza contra la democracia y la paz mundial.
A Hedonist Manifesto: The Power to Exist
La fuerza de existir
Apología de la inmanencia