“A Day in the Life of Thanos Lipowatz” (2013) – Documentary

“A Day in the Life of Thanos Lipowatz” (2013) – Documentary


From Socrates to Kant and Hegel… philosophy was faithful to the idea
that “nobody is consciously evil”… to the idea that in the end,
people will head toward Good. Regardless of the different kinds of obstacles
that they would meet on the way… always toward Good. With the French Revolution
the debate starts… whether people really
choose Good. Since the French Revolution,
all the philosophical thinking… with Kierkegaard as its first
great philosopher of course… – and Schelling even before him -… founds the idea… that man has a will of Evil for Evil. Man is called upon to detect
the presence of Evil… – and he does that during
the psychoanalytic therapy -… and also of the negative,
of the lack of meaning. We will not be able to discover
some kind of meaning… unless we reach the end
of this ordeal… i.e. of the Evil that exists
in ourselves… but in the others as well,
everywhere. This ordeal does not exclusively
have an ethical side… it’s not just simply important
for the individual. It is a fact that… we become individuals
through this ordeal. And the psychoanalytic therapy… is a field open to anyone
to become an individual… and consequently to collide
with the existing social models… and become himself. If there was enthusiasm for Europe
from the beginning… in all the countries that initially
took part in its foundation… disbelief and mutual blame… wouldn’t prevail today… something that is recently
very often observed. On the other hand, I believe… that we can’t go back anymore. When I hear people saying that
we have to go back to point zero… and start over… then I say that, in that case… the really great chaos
would take over. Something like this is, I will say it,
unthinkable. What is now relevant with the present time
is to find the common elements… and primarily to find the common
European values… i.e. values that are relevant
for each state separately… and are realistic. At some point,
in the summer of 2000… he calls me on the phone
and tells me… that I have an essay to show you,
for the “Nea Estia” magazine. I reply to him
that I will gladly look at it. I take this text in my hands,
which bore the title “Discourse on God”. And I am taken by surprise. STAVROS ZOUBOULAKIS
The essay was written
on first singular person… although the title was “Discourse on God”,
it was written on the first singular person. I.e. not generally speaking
“Discourse on God”… but why I personally want
to believe in Christ. From that point on,
the point of the year 2000… I believe that his work is formed
into the character that bears today. I.e. till then… his work is produced on the borders
of psychoanalysis and politics… since 2000,
his work is produced… on the border of politics, psychoanalysis,
and Christian thinking. A day in the life of Thanos Lipowatz Paris The truth is that I started writing
relatively late… because I had initially
started my career… my studies not my career… in Berlin’s
Polytechnic School etc, … and after that,
I discovered my desire. Surely, I found out
this saying of Lacan… after I had already
solved the problem myself… i.e. I faced
the great dilemma… to abandon in a way… all the hard work I had done
while studying in the Polytechnic School… and start over… and study sociology,
philosophy, psychoanalysis… and all the subjects
that interested me. That decision… was what we call in a Kierkegaard sense
existential decision… who I am and what I want… it was a heads or tails type of risk,
I won that game… but I had to go through
a large period of crisis… and after it was a huge liberation,
and I never regretted it. I had discovered psychoanalysis
quite early in Berlin… because I was related with people
that were Adorno’s students… and also students
of the Frankfurt School… to which I also felt that I belong. Nevertheless Freud together with Marx
was for us the great thinker… who was inspiring us. And also, the great discovery
for me was Lacan… when I visited Paris in the early 70s
for the first time… where I was captivated
by his discourse… which was surely inaccessible
and hard to understand… but that didn’t make me
give up… but on the contrary I got stubborn
and I said to myself… that I will thoroughly understand
him using any way possible. But what basically captivated me
concerning Lacan… was Lacan’s saying… which summarizes his entire own view
on psychoanalysis… that doesn’t disagree
at any point with Freud… but it has brought new elements
to many areas… and the saying is that you must not
give up on your desire. But the point is that it doesn’t mean
that we know it from the beginning… because since he says desire,
he means the unconscious desire… that we have to search
in order to find it… and usually
we don’t want to know it… and we think that
we want other things… we desire other things. For me it was very important
not to give up on my desire… in the beginning of the 70s… because the student movement
had already finished in 69… and since 1970
the bad phase started… with the terrorism
and the fanaticism… and in that sense,
I discovered then… that my desire
is to understand… why all the revolutions
end up in totalitarianism… in violence and totalitarianism. A great deal of things
that we do in our lives… very few are truly
our real desire. One way or another,
as children and adolescents… we are attached to
our parents and teachers. One way or another. This is not a bad thing,
this is the way it should be… but since the moment of adulthood
we start deconstructing… we deconstruct the social models
and the emotional dependencies… Taking risks has an important role
in psychoanalysis… but it’s not a risk of
the desperado… the desperate man or the gambler,
the existentialist as many people think. but it is the risk of acknowledging
the consequences… of our deeds and
primarily our words. I.e. if I speak some words,
these words count… and possibly these words can put me
into danger, for example in politics… if I talk openly today
for example in Russia… or criticize the wrong aspects… in the regime and the society etc… these words have a cost,
because they can put me in jail. The risk that anyone can go through
in psychoanalysis… is to directly face
the dark parts of oneself. I.e. if one has violent or
incestuous desires deep inside… he should look at them
straight in the eye. The worst thing of all
are the habits… Lacan says that there is no
such thing as a good habit… only bad habits exist. Because he wanted to show that
even when we have good intentions… these good intentions,
as the Germans say… lead the way to hell. In psychoanalysis there is always
an element of uncovering… uncovering every
false convenience… and at the same time, on the other hand,
it shows us that look… there is the limit of the law, which
means that you have to respect the law… and the moral Law
says exactly this thing… that you are not almighty,
you are not all knowing… you can’t act as you will. Psychoanalysis does not dictate anything,
nor does it forbid anything. However, it’s an indirect way of
showing you where your limits are. And these limits
are the limits of any man. But the limits of any man… must be found by each person
personally, exclusively… i.e. nobody except for me… and no group, no political party,
no church… can dictate me what I want
and what to do. Psychoanalysis favors the democratic
discourse on one condition… that in democracy, everyone will have
incorporated psychically… internalized the moral Law. I.e. they will know and respect
the democratic laws… they will protest when the laws
are not implemented… but they will never
fall into the temptation… to abolish the rule of law
or the moral laws… and consider that only violence
and deceit can be the goal… the way for the better society. A perfect democracy does not exist… but the menace of dictatorship… through an extreme view on
democracy is visible… and I see this on various well known
contemporary intellectuals… and philosophers and politicians… who use this exact discourse… i.e. that the rebel will be
some kind of ruthless risk taker… who will risk everything
and his life as well etc… all in the name of the revolution. Because I took part in the
student movement in 68… which brought about many good things and
equally many bad things later on… and first of all, a huge confusion
took place then… at least I differentiated my views
from the beginning… I realized very early that Freud
has nothing to do with this… i.e. they started
identifying Freud… with sexual liberation
and sexual revolution… but psychoanalysis has nothing
to do with these things. Second, with the anti-authoritarian education,
which is also something that is not true… and third with anti-psychiatry. All the above were simultaneous
movements of anarchic origin… which, when a social crisis… or a moral values crisis
takes place… all these old sects that were
hiding in their holes… in their lair, they were not
coming up on the surface… nobody was considering them
to be serious… everything comes up
on the surface. Now we see every sect,
even the most naive one… either the “Indignants”… or anybody else to come up
on the surface… and everyone wants to save the world
with naive ideas etc… in the worst case with violence
and with arms in their hands. All these things however… always exist in the margins of
every society… more or less tolerable conditions
for the general population… but their influence is
not significant. Now, when conditions are difficult,
there is a great danger… that these extreme elements
will come up on the surface… and dominate,
even for one night. In many countries like Greece… where many people have reached the
limits of desperation and anger… where desperation and anger
are the worst advisors… for thinking clearly about
the political issues… because even in
the worst case… now I am talking
about politics… one must not forget… that nevertheless politics is
not like our private life. In our private life… we can make a step further,
extreme… in politics this is
not allowed… because it leads to crime
and dictatorship. It’s important that we have
to get used to the idea… that it’s necessary to put an end to
a fundamental fantasy, the fantasy of direct democracy. To my opinion, direct democracy is
not the real democracy, it’s not an ideal that
we have to approach… but a fantasy that
we have to battle. It’s a lengthy fight: we have to understand that
in the fair societies… there is a certain
presence of evil, the inability of man to be
interested for the Public Good, and consequently a necessity for
representation, with parliament deputies etc, therefore an indirect,
representative democracy. This representation demands
a painful labor… that very few are
ready to undertake, and this is what
psychoanalysis shows us, that a certain labor is demanded to
represent the other. Anyone is free to accept or
not this labor. We are free: we have the
potentiality that is all, we can’t do anything more. Democracy offers the possibility of
this achievement, but can’t necessarily
impose it. I make the hypothesis here,
or rather the realization, that in the crisis,
there is a regression… to more primitive stages of
the psyche… and a return to fantasies… we thought they had
disappeared long ago. However, as we know, everything that we have repressed
comes back at a certain moment… and during the crisis
we have fantasies, like for example the
contemporary crisis… reminds us a lot of the condition
during the interwar period, in the decades of the 20s
and 30s, and mostly the same praise… to heroism and the
derogation of democracy: democracy as something “full of routine”,
“boring”, “petit-bourgeois” and
“pharisaic” etc, and also the praise to the
nostalgia for heroic actions. At that era, in the beginning of
the 20th century… the so-called decisionism
appeared. Which meant that now, all these theories,
all the analyses… the political parties… they are slowing things down,
they are not practical… they lead to corrupted compromises,
this and that… now we have to be decisive… make decisions and
execute them. And if we come across any obstacles,
we will use force as well, that’s it. Berlin Zizek for example,
but other colleagues of him as well, like Badiou,
Agamben and others, who are very much in fashion
in Europe at the moment, especially among artists’ circles
and among intellectuals, they speak of «post-democracy»,
which is a disgusting word – or not? If someone starts talking
already about «post-democracy», he should talk once and for all
about dictatorship. Because in the decade of the 20s… the most fundamental enemy
– even for the fascists – was not only communism,
but liberalism as well. Criticism was made then on the
insufficiencies of liberalism, which exist one way or the other… – flaws of parliamentarism or
the democratic system -, but in the end they threw out the
baby with the bath water… and questioned
democracy itself. I have the suspicion that the
same thing will happen now, and I think one must clearly resist… {an1} with his stance and word. Since the mid 60s there was a significant feeling of
discontent among the young people in Germany… and particularly among the students who
were studying philosophy… and social sciences. I was also part of
this social group. All these students… started developing a certain feeling of
dissatisfaction for the way of life in general. In their majority, they were coming from
bourgeois families… and to some extent,
the main political argument… was that the Nazi past of Germany
hadn’t been clarified yet… because almost 20 years after the
establishment of West Germany in 48… till 68… the public sector was still
populated by ex Nazis… who were of course Nazis
during their youth… and after all of them started
building the social mechanism. At that time, I was of course
young and inexperienced… but I was trying to understand
what was going on… because there was always chaos. We wanted many things that were
beautiful but unrealistic… and we were pushing ourselves
to be activists… and at the streets every day,
to do something every day… and if we wouldn’t do anything,
we blamed ourselves that we didn’t do enough. Free University Some people thought that if
a policeman gets killed for example… is collateral damage. Or if one of us gets killed,
is a collateral damage as well. Many intense debates took place then
because of that, and then Habermas… in 68 if I am not mistaken,
around that time… he was categorically
against that… and had used the famous phrase
“left fascism”. I think it was a very brave act
on behalf of Habermas… because that was
exactly the case… we just realized that afterwards. I.e. RAF and all the terrorists in Greece
and anywhere else… and in Italy were a version of
left fascism. Which means that, fascism is
not just something… that represents an
ideology of a fascistic… dictatorial structure of the state… but above all it is a way of life. Hall of student assemblies in 66-69 For the extreme right violence
there is not much to say… the problem is not in the
extreme right violence for us… because the extreme rightists
will be de facto violent. Because their tradition starts
with Mussolini… and Hitler, and Barres… the first ones that practiced fascism
were the French… the Italians and later the Germans. I mean first from the
historical point of view. The problem is with the left violence. And I don’t refer to violence per se… I refer to the tolerance
to violence… to the ideology of the
justification of violence… of the rationalization of violence. I would say that this has to do with
the repressed feelings… the remains even from the
period of the civil war… and one part of the Left… never accepted the fact that
they lost the game… which game, to establish
socialism in Greece… and of course, it is fortunate
that they didn’t do it… it would end up becoming Stalinism
like in all the other countries. But it didn’t happen, however there were
some people that had the illusion… that we don’t care about what happened to the
other countries, we would do it better. Anyway. If we trace back to the history of
the myth of violence… which you very nicely analyze… in the “Psychopathology
of the Political”… KOSTIS STAFILAKIS
we will possibly go… to the period of the terrorism in
the French Revolution… and of course we will end up
in a primal idea… which is the idea of violence, of the
community’s spontaneous violence… against the corrupted
bourgeois democracy… as a solution which can
be adopted… by the class struggle for example… and lead to a complete,
to the real revolution. I categorically refuse to say
that the left… the proletarian, however you want to call it,
the people’s terrorism… is better than the fascistic one. I refuse categorically
to do such a thing. And I think that when Hannah Arendt
talks about totalitarianism… and she explicitly states that there are two
kinds of totalitarianism and not one… a left and a right… I totally agree to what she says. I don’t care at all if that is also
stated by the liberals… I have great appreciation for
the political liberals… I reject neoliberalism,
the economical liberalism. Without the political liberalism… we wouldn’t have democracy today. All the functioning institutions… derive from liberalism… but the classical,
the political liberalism… that unfortunately is becoming extinct
today in the whole Europe. In every crisis we have the chance… to start over again with
certain things… in a better way than we
did in the past… with the condition that we have understood
what happened in the past. When today we see that,
too many people… older ones as well but
mainly the young ones… who of course lack
history experience… the older ones are obliged to
have such an experience… and not to forget certain things… and why all these
experiments failed… and mainly why the limitless and
one dimensional idealization… of systems such as
socialism etc… lead exactly to the outcome that
we know… and at this point,
a political scientist… or a common intellectual… that studies these things… has the obligation not to yield to
probably some romantic tendencies… that he had since his youth… and believe that this is the
solution we can offer. What Willy Brandt famously said… is that if one is not communist or
leftist in his twenties… he will not become democrat
in his thirties. Above all, that was
true for himself… and stands for me too. I was a leftist when I was 25, and in my
thirties I became a social democrat… and stayed that way till now… something that however does not stop me
from fundamentally criticizing… the contemporary tactics of the
social democrats… because after the great success they met
in the decade of 70s and 80s… they went into decline. And social democracy and
democracy itself… must be reinvented. Social democracy is today
the worst political party… except for all the others. What I mean is that it can’t cause enthusiasm
to anyone, which is unfortunate. But on the other hand,
it’s worth mentioning… and the other day I enjoyed watching an
amazing interview on the German television… with Helmut Schmidt, 95 years old… and the German president Gauck… an amazing person and ex-pastor,
member of the resistance from East Germany. And they were talking
about Europe etc. We all know that both of
them love Greece etc. The point is that
someone there said… that probably today,
the present time… some people are not getting enthusiastic
about the idea of a fairer society etc… and Helmut Schmidt, extremely cool,
coming from Hamburg… very Kantian, totally Kantian… said that I don’t get enthusiastic,
I am a democrat… and a social democrat in my principles,
I never get enthusiastic. But what does that mean,
this is the dilemma now… for someone to say that,
he must be a Protestant above all… have Protestant education… that internalizes the ethical
values that much… that there is no room to be
enthusiastic for something… because it’s all inside him. However, he is the most
trustworthy one… because he will never change his stance,
he will always be consistent… whereas the Greek,
who is so easily excited… and gets enthusiastic the one day,
and the other he does the opposite thing… he will quickly lose the
excitement afterwards. However, I want to say… that we can’t demand this
from Greek people… because they haven’t been through
this Protestant education… of centuries that means
internalization… reliability and responsibility. I have an opinion, I support it,
I can’t do otherwise… it’s what Luther said: Here I stand,
I can’t do otherwise… if you want, take me away
and kill me. Athens (Andreas) Panandreou had
the great opportunity… to change these things… and make a genuine
social democratic program… i.e. to rationalize a society
based on solidarity… which however is no longer
relied on clientelism… and family dependencies… but there is meritocracy
and reliability. These two key words,
meritocracy and reliability… are exactly the ones… that never managed to
prevail in Greece. However, to a very
important extent… they prevail in northwest Europe… and furthermore in
north Italy too etc. I want to say… that this is what was required
but never took place in Greece… and some kind of
seminar leftism continued… and a leftism of the student groups
and of the university professors… who were living in
different worlds… and every tiny attempt
of rationalization… was surely considered to be a threat for
their interests and the social conquests. Until now,
citizens were competing… with the political establishment
that had the power… were competing in unlawfulness
and stealing from the state. . And this has become a popular
and revolutionary mentality. Of course the anarchists,
actually this is not a left mentality… and many things that
circulate as left ideas… they are not left, they are
anarcho liberal… and primarily it’s about a
petit-bourgeois anarchism… that always prevails in Greece… because that is very convenient for everyone,
not to do what they have to do… and always do what suits them. The first ones that
started having debts… and breaking the rules… in economy were the
French and the Germans. I mean they were the first ones who
started creating debt for the state. And afterwards, in the end,
the Greeks overdid it as usual… always exaggerating,
being extreme. But everyone did this… just you know the attitude of
all these people in Greece… when they hear that a
criticism is made… and criticism has to be made
about what happened in Greece… because criticism is the
precondition for self-catharsis. Most of the people that criticize Greece,
they do that out of good will… I mean the Germans, the French,
the English etc… they criticize out of
good will… they don’t do that
out of rejection. But most of the times,
the Greek’s attitude is that… if he hears criticism
from someone… immediately will react
with anti-criticism. In psychoanalysis… this is a fundamental
behavior of someone… that wants to displace his own
burden to the other person. The other tells you, it’s your fault,
you have a dark spot… and he says wait, let me see,
you have a dark spot too… so you have a dark spot too,
so you don’t have the right to talk. And the debate stops there. Therefore, the fact that
nobody is sinless… but the Greeks have sinned
very heavily so to speak… some people that are… reliable and have a meritocratic
stance accept that… and say yes, we have
made big mistakes… and we accept the criticism,
and we are ready to start over… and make things better. You don’t put forward for
Christianity in Europe… a demand for radical social change,
but within the existing status quo… a reinforcement of democracy
and of social solidarity. I demand a certain political awareness by
the general population and the young people… which can’t happen by itself… because the contemporary capitalism
renders people politically idle… and this is where an
inherent limit is. What I don’t believe… is that capitalism can
be abolished… and even more to be abolished
from one day to the other. It can be evolved, within the context
of a democratic struggle… which is not going to be violent and
they will not abolish democracy… exactly because they want to
put limits on capitalism. However is this reinstatement of
Christianity in the public discourse.. taking place just because Christianity
is not a threat for them any more? Is it a tamed beast now,
totally toothless… it has lost any kind of
metaphysical force… so yes, lets include it in
the discussion too. I have the impression that gradually some
kind of fatigue has been developed… from the so-called
post-modern condition. A fatigue from what we call,
the Germans call it hedonism. I.e. the culture of consumerism… of hedonism,
of the spectacle etc… and also a culture of
irresponsibility… of the limitless individualism
and egocentrism. And of course all these
started from… an alleged liberating claim
of Enlightenment… that man is autonomous
and self defined… and the ultimate value is
his freedom. And I think that some
intellectuals that… want to think about things through
the historical perspective… but not just the historical perspective
of the 20th century… but they also start from
the 16th, 17th, 18th century. At this point I believe
they start thinking… whether they have
neglected something… and whether a mistake has
taken place three centuries now… when this great division
took place in the West… between Christianity
and atheism. I believe that is the first part. However, concerning the part
that many people… sympathize with Christianity
as a remain… that is not frightening to anyone;
that is something clear. And the question is, to what
extent the Christians themselves… and the churches themselves… should probably find a way
to be more annoying… and in that way they would be
taken much more seriously. Of course I haven’t experienced you
as my teacher… but I see that in your books,
psychoanalysis… political philosophy, ethics, theology,
anthropology, coexist with each other. In an era of the extreme
specialization like today… when we’ve reached the point… that several doctorate theses
are based on nothing… literally on nothing… I think that it is a proof of a
rich written discourse… MICHALIS PAGALOS
when your books are based
on so many fields… and deal with so many fields. I didn’t want to reject the fact that
we have to demand… the application of
ethical rules in politics. We knew that in a country
which was par excellence… the most unlawful country
of western Europe… together with south Italy,
and that’s Greece… now since the Balkan countries
entered Europe… of course we are now plenty,
unlawful countries… which surely I compare… with the situation in
Latin America… i.e. Mexico, Colombia etc. In that case I was insisting
that the Law must exist… and I always had against me a united front
of post-modernists.. of Nietzscheans,
of anyone else… and of all the leftists,
the autonomous, the anarchists… namely of all the sects. I insisted saying no,
that concept must be preserved… and additionally,
because we are not idealists… the law is applied by
certain people… and the laws are applied
more or less in a wrong way. However, applying the law wrongfully
10, 20, 30, 50% is one thing… and another is to apply it 99% in the
wrong way, or totally ignore it. This is where the stake lies. And politics is not
moralism for me… at this point I agree
with many people… that exactly say that politics
is not moralism… but it’s not impunity too. I.e. it’s not mafia politics… We speak of mafia politics
today in Mexico… in Colombia,
in South Italy etc. In Greece,
the only difference is… that we haven’t still ended up
in 2 or 3 huge mafias… controlling everything… we probably have 20 or 30 compact
mafias, that is the only difference. The problem is that… there are other countries in Europe
which are not in this way. And in Greece, the tragedy
is that the people… and I especially feel sorry
for the young people… who can’t imagine that
other countries exist… where the laws are applied in
a relatively fair way… I say relatively because they can never
be applied absolutely fairly… but this relatively fair application
is hugely different… to the almost complete unlawfulness
that prevails in countries like Greece. They can’t imagine that
things can work… that not everybody is bribed,
that laws are properly applied… and that the public servants are
doing their job properly. But it’s true. STEFANOS IKONOMOU
I have the impression that you
substantiate the positive law… the “jus gentium”, with the notion of
the universal, symbolic Law… Let me give an example:
They vote in the parliament… at night, 10 o clock,
25 deputies… a law that gives privileges
to their relatives. That’s a law of the Greek state,
it has been voted. This is the law of
“anything is allowed”. In the name of the universal,
symbolic Law… which says that
“not anything is allowed”… can I go out in the streets
and protest? Of course, this is what we do. Can I go out in the streets
and protest? The Law as a principle… and as something that derives
from man’s unconscious… is different, and it’s
totally necessary… and then is necessarily
expressed… with incomplete
positive laws. I never said that the positive laws
are the only thing we have… because whatever man or
the Christians do… who supposedly want to do
God’s will etc etc… they always fail to completely
understand it… and to completely apply it… and this is part of man’s destiny… because he is a finite being. Let’s say that according
to Socrates… I support an unjust law in extreme
cases rather than the lawlessness. And that because lawlessness
is a different thing… and that is an anarchic
ideology… which I fully reject… which says that if we say that all the
laws being voted in the parliament… are all, collectively unjust… hence we reject them, and we will
make anarchy and revolution. I categorically reject
this kind of thing. Do you believe that the
democratic forces… IOSIF BASTAS
whether we call them centre-right
or centre-left… have chances to win this fight
as the crisis deepens… or what do you predict for the political
system, how is it going to end up? No. I do not want to
answer this question… simply because I am not sure
what answer can I give… because the answer
is not easy. This is not the point. The point is what we want, we don’t
ask if you want, do I want? I first want, and after I ask if you want
too, let’s go do something. I don’t wait for you to say “I want”, so that
I will say, oh, then I want too. We will lose the game
at once. What I think that Greece is
lacking right now… is that people don’t have confidence
in their own powers. And above all the young people,
who are either apolitical… or lost, or completely polarized
between simplistic models. But the citizens themselves are of
course discouraged, desperate… this is humane… but the country is not going to go
forward with desperate people. Small groups of people
will be formed… who will have confidence
in themselves… and will say yes, we are
miserable at the moment… we have to get organized
and work… first restore the respect
to labor… to meritocracy, to reliability… yes, we will not steal, I will not
steal, you will not steal… we will make a deal, we will make
a group that doesn’t steal. You don’t want that,
bad for you… however we don’t steal,
we declare it publicly. Because today in Greece… someone that will say that he doesn’t
steal, they will call him stupid. So, someone should dare to say that yes,
I don’t steal, call me stupid. Because I was always interested in
the relation of ethics and politics… and these two can never
fully converge… man is condemned to do
everything incomplete. He wants to be politically active,
even for just reasons… he will never make it… at some point he will betray some
ethical principles in politics. And vice versa, he wants to be
absolutely ethical etc… he can only become apolitical… or not deal with politics. It is the double temptation… either to do immoral politics,
or apolitical moralism. However, this division,
this dilemma… will never cease to exist for man,
and he will always try… and will have to find
some solutions. Because the society is always a
product of human beings… who as such, always tend to
practice evil. Evil cannot disappear,
nor lack. Therefore every society will have
elements of lack… and elements of evil. I.e. elements of oppression,
exploitation etc. But the problem isn’t
if they exist or not… the problem is how we can
control them, isolate them… and get over them… and that of course must be done by every
generation starting from the beginning. Every generation must
continue the fight. This fight however
doesn’t end… because every generation
creates new evil… and wants to be almighty
and all knowing… and she will fail at
some point. Therefore, the next generation
will criticize her… but the next generation is
also prepared… to do the same mistakes. My writings are some kind
of work in progress… which means that I never think
that I said the final word… I always search,
I always look further… I am absolutely conscious of my
writings being imperfect… and having one-sided views… and I want to prove at least
to myself… and others, that I was
conscious of that… and that I want to make
them better. I will succeed with some of them,
with some others I will not… however I believe,
I always cared about… I would like to, leave some
traces behind me. On the one hand, I would like some
people to like me for what I’ve written. but also equally to hate me… because that would really
be a balance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *