With Hegel the individual is lowered into the story, not with the materialists. To the pessimist Leopardi's life (except for legitimate hope of the scientific struggle against nature nor the broom) is structurally nonsense (the background mo nichilis Leopardi was well emphasized by Severino in his nothingness and poem "). Also note how Leopardi expresses a hatred of nature that the greek did not know at all. Hegel defines this attitude as a "splitting" interaction. Man is nature and culture, and nature can also be our friend (think of antibiotics!). Personally I do not consider the nature neither good nor bad, but a simple fact (or if you will, dialectically good and bad at the same time). Lucretius, with the introduction of the concept of atom deviates randomly, seems to consider the possibility of freedom, but not all the atoms meet. Each atom has its own history, then history is not there. I hope I have enough reasons my reasons. E 'Clearly, the very philosophies reflect the mood and the reality of time. For example, it is very logical that in an individualistic society will embrace the philosophy of the atom (because it reflects what you see in society), but this may affect any change, can not be revolutionary. I just want to say that all philosophies communicate something right, but not all produce a change.
0 comments:
Post a Comment