Vedendo il film “Final destination” mi sono sorti diversi dubbi. Questo film parla del destino di ognuno di noi in maniera abbastanza particolare: spiega e mette in azione come tutti abbiamo già prefissata la nostra morte attraverso un ciclo universale. Nessuno riesce ad evitare la morte anche chiudendosi in casa senza oggetti pericolosi, quando è il nostro momento la vita finisce. È possibile l’esistenza di questo ciclo " particolare "?
Elisabetta
Cara Elisabetta,
Martin Heidegger è stato il pensatore che in epoca moderna meglio ha tematizzato il concetto di destino. È nel suo saggio Essere e tempo, pubblicato nel 1927, che il termine riceve una prima formulazione definita, ma anche nella sua riflessione posteriore il concetto riceve delle elaborazioni molto importanti, in una prospettiva che va però oltre l'esistenzialismo, e che, passando per il suo nuovo concetto di ontologia si carica anche di suggestioni mystical extremely important and fascinating.
As for man, the idea of \u200b\u200bfate seems to pay more, psychologically, to our way of being. Fate then determined by the choices we make, dictated by nature, the choice that others of us do, then that may affect our future, dictated by our character appearance.
This contrasts with the vision of Carl Gustav Jung: "From the beginning I felt the presence of fate, as if life had a role to play allotted by fate: it gave me an intimate sense of security, that although I could never find reason in myself, I was called for by itself. It was not me to have this certainty, it had possessed me. "
theologian Vito Mancuso, tells us that" The history of Christian theology has often fierce debate and the outcome is still unresolved as to the issue of free decisions of men for good. a prime example on in Catholic circles is the dispute that divided auxiliis de Dominicans and Jesuits in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century and ended with a stalemate.
The inability to answer the question about the human person still refers to the impossibility most overt of the theological question itself, or the freedom to be attached to the Divine. It is a being whose essence libertas is the perfect or in perfect necessitas? The enigma of the decision refers to the metaphysical question of freedom for excellence, "and the one common need of all the philosophies of all religions such as: winning a representation of God, and then the relationship between God and the world" (Hegel, Encyclopedia , § 573).
Free will is the philosophical and theological concept that every person is free to make its own choices. This is in contrast to the various deterministic conceptions according to which the reality is somewhat predetermined (destiny), so individuals can not make choices for their every action is predetermined before they were born (or predestination Bondage of the Will).
The concept of free will has implications in terms of religion, ethics and science. In the religious free will implies that the deity, as omnipotent, chooses not to use its power to influence people's choices. In ethics this concept is the basis of an individual's responsibility for his actions. In science the idea of \u200b\u200bfree will leads to independence of thought understood as an activity of the mind and the mind itself from pure scientific causality.
positions on the philosophical problem of free will are simplified in these options:
1. Determinism is sure?
2. Is there free will?
Determinism is the idea that all things that happen in the present and future are a necessary consequence caused by previous events. The
compatibility (also known as given disorder) believes that the existence of free will is compatible with the fact that the universe is deterministic, as opposed to the incompatibility denies this possibility. Determinism is a stronger version of the incompatibility accepting that everything is determined, and measures and the human will. Libertarianism (in English, Libertarianism) is consistent with determinism only in rejecting the strong compatibility, but libertarians accept the existence of a free will together with the idea that there are some things indeterminate.
"The dispute about the human freedom of will, that between 1524 and 1526 sees opposing Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther, is a decisive moment in the history of Western thought and modernity. In the written reply of Erasmus and Luther is in fact to the fore the crux of the relationship between two essential components of early modern culture, namely, humanism and the Reformation. You are comparing two different conceptions of freedom: overriding prerogative of human reason to Erasmus, a divine gift inseparable from grace for Luther. "
In view of my school of thought, based on the development human individuals solitary and selfish to altruistic social community (see my post "Good and Evil" http://apiuvoci2.blogspot.com/2010/01/il-bene-e-il-male-rev-1. html and "Solitude" http://apiuvoci2.blogspot.com/2010/03/la-solitudine.html), this slow transformation can be accelerated or not by so many individual choices of individual rights. And in this respect, we do not turn away a lot from Martin Heidegger.
Here lies the key, in our view, free will. A free will to do single choice, which can then influence, even heavily, about destiny and the destiny of other men. In one respect, we are also close to the vision MALE Catholic who uses the temptations that we, human beings, we are always tempted by our own selfish personal gain immediate benefits and limited, to the detriment of the good of the community to which we belong. And in this view, similar to the Catholic, we can also make preliminary choices, or we can try, in principle, possible to escape the temptations. We must, that is, be aware that not always, especially in certain specific situations, in which the emotions and passions can take over, we are able to withstand them.
the "Our Father" of Catholics, there is the phrase "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Well also the value and action of free will that strengthens us, even unconsciously, in pursuit of the choices altruistic, rejecting those selfish apart from any effects of psychosomatic and unconscious influence on others, which may change the choices and the fate of other men.
In the third millennium, it seems increasingly clear that the interdependence of human choices, especially when it concerns the threat of thermonuclear war, and environmental protection. Hence our obligation to work with our individual choices, not only to remove tumors of human society, but also to regenerate the Selfless SOCIAL FABRIC. So the free will of individuals having effect limited, but also free will, democratically driven, the human community, calling more and more responsible choices, the consequences worldwide.
In conclusion, I believe the future is not written in a definitive way, and you can always, but limited, change with our free will, individual and collective.
Best wishes
Alessandra
0 comments:
Post a Comment