La figura del intelectual, que estructuró todo el siglo XX, hoy ha desaparecido del debate público. Aunque algunos firmen manifiestos o participen en polémicas, lo cierto es que su repercusión en la sociedad es mínima. publica M V LL Una exageración , pero que redunda considerable cuando uno se encuentra con un otro autor , uno que se supone suicida , un situacionista , y que publica además un libro con un título semejante como para señalar un plagiarismo que hasta el país insinua con tinte molusco caribeño La sociedad del espectaculo y que pone apostrofe un citado And without doubt our epoch ... prefers the image to the thing, copy to the original the representation to the rea l i ty, appearance to being ... What is sacred for it is only illusion, but what is profane-· is truth . M ore than that, the sacred grows in its eyes to the extent that truth d i m i n ishes and i l l usion i ncreases, to such an extent that the peak of illusion is for it the peak of the sacred. Feuerbach prolog to the esence of Christianity este otro un autor que inspiró a Marx . A sabiendas que aquel más grande intelectual de los tiempos de la banalidad cultivó una simpátia adocenada por un imberbe impulso, morigerada por un atender ya el quehacer dentro de los parámetros de la demagogia de los indicadores hasta económicos no cabe sino sonreír ya en la expectativa blanda de que los repudios usuales y las prevenciones inusitadas haya un vestigio de recapacitar para superar o al menos reconocer ... como un vehemente lastimero postrero esfuerzo de la cultura no como tópico sino como lo que sea un esfuerzo humano que se escabulle a tales y otros reflexiones válidas . Proponer que la figura del intelectual , o concretamente algún o algunos de esos que da por llamar el autor dinosaurios estructuro el siglo XX , es prácticamente ignorar lo que ha sido el siglo veinte . Por que valga esa propensión casi mezquina pero ubérrima de resaltar gustos esteticismos arbitrarios sentires para determinar que se trata de un espectaculismo a ultranza que por lo demás sea como el alter ego de esas hipérboles infundadas que quieren robarle el escenario a otros en un primadonismo cuya médula sea la procura del beneficio personal a lo sumo . Considerando a TS eliot lee uno en otro lado Unfortunately the demands of the “how to” of acculturation so press us that we sometimes fail to reflect carefully on the “what” and “why” of acculturation. By exploring the concept of culture, this presentation seeks to address this need. Specifically, it seeks to define the term culture and to identify some of the apologetical implications that this definition has for a healthy theology of contextualization. More Notes Towards the Definition of Culture Mark A. Snoeberger Y The encroaching definition(s) of culture that so exercised Eliot and others of his ilk came from the field of secular anthropology. Thoroughly convinced of the evolutionary theory of human origins and development, most anthropologists viewed religion as a part of culture (and generally as a primitive or even aberrant element), and not culture as a product of religion. Since culture was the more primary concept and religion a mere part of it, the definitions of culture that began to dominate the intellectual landscape were devoid of religious reference. Edward Tylor is widely regarded as the seminal voice in this redefinition of culture, so we will begin with his definition and note several others that follow this understanding:14 • Edward B. Tylor: Culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”15 • Clyde Kluckhohn: “By culture we mean all those historically created designs for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational, and nonrational, which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behavior of men.”16 • Louise Damen: “Culture: learned and shared human patterns or models for living; day-to-day living patterns. These patterns and models pervade all aspects of human social interaction. Culture is mankind’s primary adaptive mechanism.”17 • Clifford Geertz: “The culture concept…denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.”The definitions above are not so much wrong as they are incomplete. They focus on cultural practices and patterns in a way that implicitly divorces them from their religious underpinnings. This then feeds the idea that many if not most of these activities are morally/religiously neutral and, as such, unprejudiced and impervious to ethical analysis. To suggest the superiority of the cultural practices of one culture over those of another19 is in this model impossible at best and prejudiced and immoral at worst. Cultures are certainly different from one another, but there is no universal standard by which superiority may be measured or even proposed on cultural issues. Certainly we cannot posit a religious standard, because religion is now a product of culture, not its foundation. dbts.edu/pdf/macp/2008/Snoeberger,%20More%20Notes%20Towards%20the%20Definition%20of%20Culture.pdf
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:23:27 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015