“I rely on the authority of the zapater in matters of botas. No, I say it: Mijail Bakunin says it. Some people are very suspicious of authoritarianism. And now that sentence comes to mind, because it seems appropriate to get on the defensive what many call snobbery and is not the criterion. In short, I defend the criterion in the present day, when some argue that the truth was only a presumption of personal taste and feeling.
Yes, too bad the truth doesn’t enjoy good food. Here I am, here is what I want, decide: is it true? Not to mention that much of the scientific or philosophical truths we have espoused have been proven false over time. But I hope there are few who believe that there is as much truth in the physics of Einstein as there is in the physics of Aristotle. We are able to live because we trust one postulate more than others and are responsible for establishing certain criteria for choosing them.
There is no other general election in which others claim that the electorate has elected someone who harms them. Few respond that it is arrogant to tell the majority that it is misunderstood. How can this be misunderstood in what so many voters agree with? With what authority can you assert that you have more adequate political options than others?
And yet, this is the foundational assumption of a democratic system: that voting is something more than personal taste. I would like to think about it Many of us believe that in 1933 the Germans voted “wrongly”: not just morally wrong, even wrong badit is decided against your own interests. And I believe that if the voters had been better informed, Hitler would have achieved a bad result in the Reichstag.
The question is whether there are better or worse options. The best question is: where should the authority to decide this remain? Bakunin’s answer is simple: in zapatero. When it comes to botas, always on the zapatero. First, I certainly know less about climate change than a panel of expertsand when it comes to country experience, I prefer Pedro Duque’s experience to impressions youtubers which cateaba Conocimiento del Medio.
It strikes me that discussions of artistic quality are now based on appealing to the mayorship criterion
Like many others, I have devoted my life to the study of what literature may contain in truth. Books and books about other books and books about how to write other books. No, I’m not committed to any objective truth, but what I’m working on supports the idea of it some true literature does exist. It’s not snobbery, it’s just coherence: you’re going to believe something else, you haven’t spent much time studying what goes with some texts in real literature.
That’s why I understand that artistic quality is currently being discussed appeals to the mayor’s criterion or if it is interpreted as mere frivolous excesses. It doesn’t hurt that many artistically inappropriate works can lead to great life results: good for you. No one should oblige the mayor to buy exceptionally good books if they find nothing of value in them.
But at the same time I claim the right to examine this thing called art and let others decide: that is art. It is not so. We can be ambiguous, and sometimes we will be, but the problem will be that our criterion is ambiguous, not that the same idea of the criterion is. And if that is snobbery, then I claim the right to be a snob.
Leave a Reply