"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
These words, coming from the Pope of the Catholic Church, shouldn't be really surprising. All religious institutions have always tried to establish a "doctrine of absolutes", a collection of moral principles that societies have to follow and confirm to. Though the methods of enforcement might have changed- from the bloody prosecutions and wars of the Inquisition to the modern, fundamentalist doctrines of all religions today- it cannot be denied that this force still continues to shape human societies everywhere.
But at another level, the very conception of relativism raises a lot of questions. Relativism- the idea that there are no absolutes and solutions to human problems are shaped (and should be) by the social contexts that surround them or even by individual perspectives- does seem, at least at first sight, to be modern, egalitarian and free of dogma. There is indeed something appealing about a conception that acknowledges that problems need to be seen away from the dogmatic and tyrannical eyes of some authoritarian structure, be it a religious institution, governments or any other political entity.
But can societies survive without the forces of absolutism, come as they may in a number of forms? Isn't some degree of "order" imperative for a society to survive and prosper? What is it that can hold a collection of free individuals, each with their own 'egos and desires’ together as a community? Will it be possible for human beings to live at all in a world where there is no unifying sense of purpose for the race as a whole?
On the other hand, can societies develop and progress when they are held together (tyrannical as it may sound) by the forces of absolutism? Hasn't every bit of human progress occurred when an absolute principle(s) was questioned and rejected? Where will the forces of absolutism leave the basic desire for the exercise of one's free will?
Complex questions need simple answers or so the saying goes...oh really!!
2 Comments:
isnt the question essentially that of choice between stability & staleness on one hand and chaos and progress on another?
is part of the answer out there in the markets? they lap up all the tech/biotech/any-new-tech stock for its growth story. nowhere do they dump hll despite all its hindu rate of growth.
another question of finding the balance. the bigger question again is who decides what is the correct balance.. the individual herself, the society and its institutions or some central power for all its humanity?
bolo bolo :>
The question of who decides the balance is obviously a very difficult one and is not just limited to this issue. For example, who decides the balance that is needed between the markets and the State? Who decides the balance between economic development and environmental destruction? Who decides the balance that needs to be struck (if at all!) between mindless, unlimited consumption and conservation for the future?
When societies seek or strive for a specific way of living, they are implicitly answering these questions. The easy thing to do would be to pass value judgements on these choices, but making the choice isn't an easy task in any case; given that they are collective decisions made by a group of people, each with different expectation and utility functions.
Does the answer lie in democracy? If so do we have perfect democracies? Clearly, we don't. Neither are there perfect markets nor democracies. Does that mean that we leave it to the State or to the Church? Given their histories I would definitely say no.
The answer I suppose lies in the good old tradition of dialogue (not debate!) between individuals. Dialogue that does not seek to establish superiority or assert it. Dialogue that carries withy it a sense of mutual respect and tolerance.
Post a Comment
<< Home