It is easy to understand that those who suffer the consequences (of war) find it unacceptably complacent to ask why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but wrong. If we are to respond to tragedy in a way that helps the victims and avoids the even worse catastrophes that lie ahead, it is prudent and necessary to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures can be gratifying. They are not helpful.
The invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war confront us with all sorts of aporias. It is difficult to think constructively about what is happening as we watch on our televisions the destruction on the ground and the ominous prophecies voiced by our analysts about our global future.
The comfortable alternative at the moment is unanimous and unrestrained condemnation of the Russian government’s crime against international law, forgetting entirely the background that has brought us to our current circumstances.
So, on this note, I will refrain from joining the chorus of the so-called “Western media”. Firstly, because I consider it a form of moral self-deprecation to join in this kind of textbook response to which social media and “emoticons and flags” communication repeatedly enjoin us.
The aim of this series of conversations is to explore the question of “post-truth”.
Let us begin by briefly outlining what this phenomenon refers to. In general, the term refers to a certain priority given in the public space to emotions and personal beliefs, to the detriment of or above facts.
This is related, in turn, to a political phenomenon relevant to our discussion: a kind of generalised anguish on the part of citizens regarding the truths that bureaucratic authority and corporate power seek to establish in our time.
Postmodernism and Post-Truth
Analyses of the post-truth phenomenon generally adopt two strategies.
[The following text is my response and proposal to the event «Standing at the Age» organised by Mind & Life Europe, and broadcast on 26 January 2022. The Youtube link to the event:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxcy5St-
(1) I have listened very carefully to the interventions of the panellists. I found many valuable elements for reflection. However, I believe that there is an underlying problem that must be explicitly taken on board. It is not possible to talk about standing at the edge without taking into consideration that this edge is a civilisational construction. Is the expression of a very particular «totality with its exteriority», a historically instituted regime of social and ecological relations that dominates not only institutional forms and social practices, but also, in a subterranean way, our own consciousness, our imaginations. «One world is dying and another has not yet been born». This phrase by Antonio Gramsci expresses the bardo’s experience at the political level.