Listening to the words spoken by Berlusconi at the April 25 (the full text of the site including the comments) I could not repress a deep sense of anguish. I first felt discomfort for sinister political operation in which the prime minister wishes to convert the Liberation Day in celebration of freedom (I wonder if you do not want to make the celebration of his party ... you know, in a country like Italy inattentive there is a risk that in twenty years people think of April 25 in the first instance as the party of the "party of freedom"). The chairman of the desire clearly rise to the role of peacemaker appropriate national liberation; the problem is that this "peace" seems to take the case of forced assimilation. This is a subtle game, rename it to something involving the possession, the new festival of freedom would be in effect a creature Berlusconi. The April 25 will also be a feast for all Italians, but there is no doubt that it has much more value for a certain political party for another; amendment that certain distinctive characteristics "of some" change her name, accept the role of subjects 'other' than partisans (I am referring to "boys of Salò") means not only changing structures and severely distorting the system of values, but also in the long run, result in a shift of meaning.
But if you can, this is not what most of all I did send a shiver down my spine, but the use made by Berlusconi of the term liberty are certain years that he has "bought" that word, but For the first time, he transforms into a religion (the exact words were: "Our freedom of religion"-note the plural possessive ... is a nous ? -).
All this made me think, I can not help wondering what kind of freedom he wants to propose, and what are the tenets of this "religion."
So what is freedom? And which seem difficult question today. I'm not sure that there is a answer. To begin with "freedom" is a name, a time limit. If you stop to this, the title of my post can only look foolish, do not be afraid of a word! Of course not, but the problem (and nice) word is that they are signs of something else, then be afraid of a word means fear the sense that it is given and the manner in which it is used. So you could say that I'm afraid of a particular concept of freedom which does not coincide with mine. This certainly makes things more plausible, but it is not entirely correct, or at least it's not in my case. The dialogue, Socratic understood, after all, is precisely to eliminate the terror to points different views, disagreement arises from the dialectic process which, if pursued with sincerity, can only lead to more reasonable positions. What remains, then, that can scare me?
remains a paradox. One for which the specific meaning of the word "freedom" is indeterminate, absolute. I do not have that fear of a particular concept, but the fact that this particular concept is not determined. What does this mean? It means that, flaunting the banner of freedom in a completely abstract leads to an emptying of meaning. The freedom in abstract terms, like "religion" is indeterminate, is empty, and it is despotic, just not as absolute that can be dogmatic. The religion of freedom is the trace of the more subtle dictatorship, that of thought. The freedom to be filled with meaning and not remain a nulleggia nothing in the sea of \u200b\u200bpopulist verbiage, should contact the concrete must be placed in its historical context, as specified in its rough and several materials. E 'of a problem that comes the need to experience a certain freedom, freedom is plural and therefore in some way contingent on its context that is historical and geographical, is not a transcendent, ontologically higher; a deity whose ara consecrate our lives.
I come back to mind the prophetic words almost written back in 1988 by Ludovico Geymonat in his essay entitled (precisely): "Freedom".
"[...] The acceptance of this view (NDA of freedom as absolute) may ultimately take us in an unconscious way so typical of the religious mentality. In line with the religious struggles are contrasted a true religion against all other forms of religion (false), so now we are inclined to oppose true freedom (nda: that is transcendent, absolute) against all historical approximations of freedom.
[... ] Historical examples are really and should give pause to many: think of the United States, also with their foreign policy claim to "bring freedom" to other peoples. In reality the United States "bring freedom" to other countries by a method not unlike that with which Christian countries "brought Christianity" to the "infidels."
[...] We have to challenge the defenders of "freedom" to fall from the top of the abstract principles on the concrete floor of injustice. "
why" Liberation "says much more than" freedom "at this juncture, is April 25 was something concrete, a material release from a concrete system of injustice (the ones perpetrated by the fascism) ; replaced by a sleight of liberation with the ambiguous and neutral term of freedom, which, if not specified, does not mean anything, it's harmful. the risk of becoming slaves to freedom ossannanti so empty as to be mere flatus vocis.
