When we speak of justice, is inevitably a gap opens also in the human psychology, since it is my belief that the law necessarily arises as a feeling, even before the legal system as a whole and rational. In any relationship there is raised with the outside world, we can not find a primary desire for understanding, protection and fulfillment in our work. Man is born only, all-powerful illusion that what surrounds it is an appendage of his will and his needs, and, at least at this stage, there is no law or moral that fits, but only the need to survive. In a swing of satisfactions and frustrations, the child - whose ingenuity can also be seen as 'evil' primary - not realize that has to deal with an independent reality. Here comes the awareness that, as knowledge of the limit of what is not allowed. Suddenly, but only for a short period, the external and internal world takes on the character of destructiveness, and the randomness of the threat ... but the one-sidedness can be fatal if a balance is not restored, an antithesis. Thus was born in response to a non-sense, the archetypes of good and evil. The 'good' is our will to live, which opposes the 'evil' as a negation, imposed from the outside, of our desire. We are still in prospect 'monocular', where everything is compared to the satisfaction of individual needs or not, and life itself is a constant struggle. Then, to heal this tension and this constant conflict with reality, we are inclined to admit that it is necessary to adapt and adjust. Exterior and interior are beginning to talk, calling the arrangements that will ensure a 'peaceful' co-existence: birth, therefore, the "right" to live and let live. Having said all this seems very simple and straightforward, but why things do not work? Because the law is not respected? Why the right, but dovendoci protect you against us? Hobbes said "homo homini lupus" and with this, close any discussion about human nature. But really that simple? Probably not, because - as in all the settlements - there is always someone along the way, change the cards on the table, and maybe not necessarily because it's dishonest, but because her condition has changed, its needs, its needs . Nothing in the world of nature can be said to be 'given' and unchanging. The way we look at the universe, changing, mainly because they change the affections and dispositions, the questions and answers: what was right at the time of the ancient Romans, may not be true today, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the increasing complexity of our social, cognitive, cultural and legal persons has led to a shift away from demand response. It happens then that the system changes more slowly, or inappropriately, compared to the individual conscience, as well as the individual changes more abruptly in pitch. As you rightly point out the author, the system has become impersonal - and I would add rational - to the point of not respecting more the individual As a man, with emotions. Do not forget that before the 'right thinking' is always the 'right way of thinking'. When the gap between personal and impersonal, between common sense and law, will inevitably become too great a chasm opens, in which the rule "the cries justice." Transgression, then, can become the most immediate way to defend his case, against a system that does not want to listen to reason. But behind it there is always a question unanswered, it will be difficult to silence by the mere repression. It is said that the voice of conscience is weak, but persistent, and when left too long unheard, can become a cry. You can not ask a man to give up, always and in any case, to a good high and unattainable, because in the face of that waiver, whose collective effects are lost in anything, there is the spiritual death of a man. If Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno had given up on life, to think for themselves, to follow their own feelings, the damage would have been much greater bulk of the temporary destabilization of the law! "And yet it moves." Inside, something continues to move and haunt us, even if it would have us believe otherwise. One of the great limitations of justice is precisely to disregard the voice of conscience, just as transgressive consciousness no longer complying with the law: the negotiations broke down, we returned to the logic of the struggle for survival of the fittest. The absurd claim of wanting to pursue a 'real' and 'right', as if they were eternal forms and a priori, rather than human strains subject to change, can only lead to dogma and totalitarianism ... In short, injustice and resentment. The author points out, with an excellent historical overview, as the rhetorical weapon of the man of law, has been transformed - through the centuries - from the discipline of righteousness in manipulative skills, be an instrument to reveal the truth - or so the Socrates wanted - a tool to hide the truth. The word, therefore, it is subjected to the cold rationality of the computer instead that the pathos of the soul. With what has become a dead letter, even before being pronounced: the strangeness of man to the law is becoming more pronounced, because what we hear in a courtroom is more like a calculation done well, which a breath of justice. Perhaps the propensity that some people have for the death penalty is just the extremes of this need to go to a justice on a human, who speaks the language of man, although in this case is the language of its brutality . The purpose with which Cataldi concludes his book, which is to recover consciousness as a source of law, it seems perfectly matched. You can not put order to have discomfort in any other way than by listening and interpreting his motives or even before, his emotions.
Aldo Carotenuto
0 comments:
Post a Comment