Kjerkegorov Univerzum – vodič kroz filozofski lavirint prepun religijskih zamki

Kjergegorov Univerzum je kratka knjiga koja nudi uvid u osnovne ideje Kjerkegorovog misaonog stvaralaštva. Autor knjige, Johanes Slok (Johannes Sløk), doktor teologije, povjesničar ideja, filozof i debater, predstavlja jednog od značajnijih poznavalaca djela Sorena Kjerkegora. U svojoj knjizi, Johannes Slok, osim što ocrtava konture Kjerkegorovog stvaralačkog procesa, takođe daje nijansiran pregled osnovnih tema Kjerkegorovih djela i centralnih pojmova, dajući koristan i pouzdan vodič za Kjerkegorov idejni univerzum. Pogovor, osim samom knjigom, bavi se, istovremeno, i neprestanom vraćanju na goruće pitanje ljudskog postojanja, dotičući se relevantnosti Kjerkegorovih ideja, koje, uprkos izmijenjenim istorijskim okolnostima, uvijek iznova iskrsavaju istom svježinom.

Esej

(Post)faktualitetens kimæriske eksistens

by Vladan Cukvas

En gang var der en faktuel verden regeret af dronning Sandhed. All var glade for den, for det var en verden man kunne stole på. Men en dag kom djævlen Internettet og den faktuelle verden gik under. Til folks store forvirring efterlod djævlen sig mange verdener og låste den gode dronning i det hundredespejl rum. Det skabte stor ærgrelse blandt hendes trofaste embedsmænd, som lige siden måtte live i det de kaldte den post-faktuelle verden. Men efter nogen tid gik det op for nogen, at djævlen Internettet blot var en af dronning sandhedens mange ansigter og at den var speciel, fordi den havde stor kæft og plaprede løs om alt. Men mest af alt kunne han lide at tale om dronningens embedsmænds beskidte løgne da den troede, at løgne er lige så afslørende som sandhederne selv. Mange kom til den erkendelse, om så ubevidst, at sandheden aldrig fandtes. Af dem der gjorde det var nogle glade og jublede, mens andre havde den følelse, at de lige pludselig vågnede op helt nøgne i skolegården. De havde behov for at snakke om deres utryghed og kunne ikke undgå at udtrykke væmmelse ved djævlens værk. Flere årtier efter at Internettet forbandede verden til selvudrensning bliver interessen for det iørefaldende begreb ”post-faktuel” gang på gang genoplevet i håbet om forbandelsen vil blive ophævet og den faktuelle verden vil genopstå. Men djævlen var så snedig, at han lavede en fælde, så alle der ville gå tilbage til det gamle blev hurtig låst i det hundredspejl rum. Det der følger er historien om djævlens forbandelse fortalt af djævlen selv. Continue reading

Den hovedløse politiske diskurs – hvor blev det kritiske syn af?

by Vladan Cukvas

Descartes’ skeptiske visdom at skære verden over i to

At være naiv kan virke befriende for de fleste. Det naive menneske kendetegnes ved at det tror, at verden er som den tager sig ud. Der er intet skin, ingen hemmeligheder eller gåder. Derfor slipper det naive menneske for at tænke over verden og kan nyde dens barnlige enkelthed selv når den udstiller sin forvirrende kompleksitet.

Noget anderledes forholder det sig med filosoffer og videnskabsmænd. De har for længst forkastet det naive billede som noget ganske useriøst og delte verden i to – den illusoriske og den ægte verden.  Verden for dem var for det meste drilsk, mystisk og skjult, og for at begribe den skulle man være kritisk og forsigtig. Frem for alt skulle man hele tiden kigge bag kulisserne.

At kigge bag kulisserne var Descartes’ anbefaling, som alle ægte videnskabsfolk har fulgt til punkt og prikke. Efter et utal af generationer, som fik ordentlig skolegang, blev det kritiske syn en udbredt norm. Alle skulle have lært at stille de kritiske spørgsmål, for det var vejen frem til den ægte verden. Men blev det egentligt så udbredt en norm?

Selv et hurtigt, overfladisk blik på den moderne politiske diskurs viser, at mennesker svigter konsekvent denne visdoms rettesnor og vælger at tro, at skinnet ikke bedrager i den politiske verden. Continue reading

When evil is matter of nuances

by Vladan Cukvas

France has a dark spot at the place where it used to have the city of light. But why does it look darker than other such spots? Once I saw video material (courtesy of J. Assange and bravery of C. Manning) showing how the crew of a military helicopter executed a bunch of people on the street for no obvious reason to the viewer. Even cheering could be heard in the background. I heard of men who slaughter other men and women at the wedding parties and funerals by dropping huge bombs from a drone. Not so long ago I saw video images of a crashed passenger plane, which was brought down because someone planted a bomb on it. A few days ago I heard about a bunch of people killing another bunch of people on a rock concert, on another street. What is the difference between these cases? Perhaps, we should ask whether there is a difference. The standard answer is: None to the dead and everything to their families and loved ones. But that is not the difference I’m aiming at. Continue reading

Political dissidence in the who gives a damn times – The story of Niels Harrit

by Vladan Cukvas

Slavoj Žižek once wrote a book titled “Living in the end times”. Although the title of this essay echoes some of the things Žižek identified as end times the essay is not about Žižek or about any of his books. I want to write about political dissidence and about the case of Niels Harrit, which serves illustrative purpose in this regard. The “who gives a damn” times is the setting in which the case of his political dissidence is placed. This setting may be said to be a part of our coming to an end and a few words ought to be said about it.

 Political Dissidence

Despite standard definition of the term, the lists of dissidents provided by various sources suggest that the term is elastic enough to embrace different forms of dissent and different fates many dissidents had suffered throughout the history. One thing all these dissent forms and actual dissidents have in common is that the views they defend are not only in opposition to those held by the authorities, but their views, which are typically political ideas, were perceived by those in power as dangerous and potentially disruptive. However, for the past three decades or so, in the time described by many as post-ideological and perhaps even post-political, typical dissidents became the insiders who simply talk openly about government’s secrets. They became known as whistleblowers. A typical whistleblower is a former government employee, with access to classified documents, who at one moment in her life decided to quit doing the job which she no longer believes could be defended on moral grounds and is not afraid to disclose the government’s dirty little secrets. Edward Snowden is perhaps the most famous whistleblower today and the one whose defection wasn’t a matter of espionage, but a matter of personal and moral convictions. Continue reading