by Gianluca Pinto
It got off to a great start, during Covid, by the dominant thought, with derision and with the categorization as no vax and anti-science all those who only dared to ask themselves something. Now a qualitative leap has been made. Every most holy time someone places on the table the theme of the why of this war (ie when someone is looking for “explanations” and not “justifications” for anyone), they are fundamentally opposed to two arguments that would be funny if they were not used seriously.
The first round of dance is made up of the famous and evergreen air: “This is about the fact that there is an ‘invader’ and an ‘invaded’”Said with some aggression. On this, in addition to pointing out that it is so redundant that it borders on pleonasm, I would just add that in addition to the ‘invaders’ and the ‘invaded’ there are also the ‘possessed’, like Boris Jonson and cheerful brigade.
From this first jewel of wisdom, we then move on to the ballad with the theme: “Enough talking about the past, the past has nothing to do with it, it’s time to stop finding justifications, the only problem is: now what to do “. Naturally, everything is uttered coherently, immediately afterwards bringing up 1939 from them (when, among other things, the atomic war was not at stake, among other things, and therefore forgetting the historical perspective, discovered of a few centuries does). This last refrain worries me a little more. There is something deeper here that has little to do with the war in Ukraine.
But the why of something, for God’s sake, according to them, where do you want to look for it if not in what was there before? Man lives in a little thing that is called ‘time’. On the basis of what creative reasoning does the ‘what to do’ contradict itself with the search for the explanations that are necessary to understand exactly what to do? If one found a puddle of water on the floor, what would one do to solve the problem? I imagine that, even if ‘on the wave of emotion’, he would first try to understand why that pool was created. And the ‘why’ where would you look for it? In what he should do the next day or would he look for it in something that happened before? Has anyone spilled the water? Did a pipe break? All ‘before’ stuff, not ‘after’ stuff.
The human being came out of the caves thanks to this ability (which denies the eternal present) which differentiated him from other animal species and made him evolve. It is this blessed “why” that is methodically attacked today as it were heresy.
Here we do not mock and label positions other than the dominant thought and that’s it, as happened with Covid. Here now the fundamental question is denied: the ‘why’ understood as an explanation. The ‘why’ does not mean ‘justification’. The use of the two concepts as equivalent is, in the present context, a willful will to prevent the expression of the fundamental characteristic of the human being.
At this moment there is no comparison between different positions, here there are those who want to deny the validity of what is the root of the human being. The search for an explanation and a why. This represents the sentence in question. That the dominant thinking 2022 is manifesting itself as a clash between the ‘why’ and the return to the cave?