Phenomenology of social revolutions
Someone, knowing me, I asked the reason for my post on religion.
Ten days ago I was reflecting on what might be considered "revolutions" of society. In particular, my starting point was the struggle of homosexuals in recent years to be accepted.
I noticed how to reach a stable situation, you should almost always move from end to end. The push, almost always angry and irrational / emotional - despite the genesis may also be rational - is so strong that it allows a balance. Probably this is necessary in order to drift away from a pole with a strong attractive force.
I would say that this process will involve at least three generations. On the one hand there is the old one which takes irrationally on the one hand, the other new one that pushes irrationally the other side. Presumably, if we're lucky, for generation after generation will be completely normal but according to common sense.
As for the struggle of homosexuals, after a blatant manifestations of homosexuality and ostentatious, I seem to perceive a turn in the trend towards acceptance natural.
The application of the previous post was born from the feeling that the same thing will happen here soon with regard to religion, though we are still far from a turning point.
I have the impression that we are preparing for a period of neoilluminismo and the fight against the religion. I do not mean more or less imaginative than irrational beliefs, as newage, wicca, or anything like that, but just neorazionalismo extreme. Many people start cosider "bright, enlightened, rather than non-believers or atheists. And from my point of view, religion has become more a social phenomenon than a response to human needs.
Bubbasfriend I did notice that his impression was that they were formed instead of the fate of modern clan, all of them taken to justify their beliefs and save themselves from "evil" that comes from others. The dialogue is rejected by definition, stand remains the only possibility.
do not think there will be dialogue, but later on when it comes to choosing where to stand many people will decide that it makes no sense to do so.
I trust in the slow increase in generation of IQ, for Luke instead the law of constant IQ is valid: D
course, this switch from side to side to end up in the middle is somewhat cyclical, although it is not repeated in so unchanging. In the past, homosexuality was tolerated safely, but at a time when women were not regarded as the least people and the church did not exist. The eighteenth-century Enlightenment, however, was too extreme and too oligarchic order to survive the superstition and irrationality of the masses. It does not mean that I can now, even if conditions seem slightly different.
Linked to these two "revolutions" I thought about the past sexual revolution. To be honest I know very little, so I could shoot huge cock, but I imagine that the failure is attributable to several factors: on one hand the scope of this movement was too big and therefore too few people were able to embrace him fully, who did not share some or another was held on the sidelines, certainly by us than by other parts of the influence of the church has done its part, also the spread of diseases related to sex, AIDS high on the list, slammed this extreme protest.
Now I want to run a bit 'with the imagination.
for a moment I see the struggle of gays and religion as factors in the sexual revolution. And from this vision I foresee as the next revolution on the "love". Write it in quotes because I mean the version commonly perceived and not to the dictionary definition. 'S "love" not as feeling or response to a need, but as social behavior.
course is a utopia, but dreaming is not bad;)
Now I guess I should find the moral of this long post and boring. Write me a shiver went up my spine. I was clearly evident the similarity of my view with that of Hegel (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), and Title I also used the word "phenomenology" without realizing it. I Hegel was always on the ball. Maybe I found it boring because he did not say anything considered to be innovative. Or maybe in the end I'm on the bales, who knows. Via
Hegel! go! go!
In fact it makes me conclude by saying that we are no longer the most advanced point of progress.
Some have understood it all hundreds of years before us. Bonobos
Viva!!
