Indubitabil, se poate discerne cu lejeritate o anumita inclinatie a teoreticienilor de relatii internationale catre a perora despre problema suveranitatii, fie ea de tip absolut, fie noua varianta, a suveranitatii limitate, ce implica responsabilizarea si respectarea drepturilor fundamentale ale omului. Waltz corela situatia la nivelul sistemic cu starea naturala postulata de Hobbes, in “Teoria politicii internationale”. Neindoielnic, legatura este inextricabila si asertiunea valida, dar nu pot intelege de ce nu a mers mai departe. Propensiunea spre extrapolare in operele neorealistilor indeobste este irefutabila – asadar, de ce nu s-a putut observa faptul ca renuntarea la exercitarea unor atributii ale suveranitatii prezinta numeroase similitudini cu incheierea contractului social? Osciland intre contractualismul lui Hobbes si cel al lui Rousseau, in mod special, consider ca institutiile internationale joaca rolul statului din opera scriitorului francez din 1762, in timp ce punctul de plecare a fost unul al starii naturale caracterizata de “bellum omnium contra omnes”. Recrudescenta miscarilor extremiste si eurosceptice in tari precum Grecia, Germania, Marea Britanie, poate va ingreuna procesul de evolutie al Uniunii Europene,iar toata chestiunea este extrem de discutabila, asa ca voi face recurs la situatia Japoniei pentru a ilustra aceasta teorie. Japonia, dupa cum este prea bine stiut, a pornit, la initiativa lui Shinzo Abe, un complicat demers de a devaloriza yen-ul, pentru a stopa deflatia ce a devenit endemica de prin anii ’90. Intr-o lume anarhica, actiunile Bancii Japoniei sunt legitime, chiar daca pot fi considerate de altii masuri protectioniste ( sa nu uitam ca si altii le-au promovat : Italia dupa 1887 in timpul lui Umberto I, Germania in 1879) . Principalii afectati sunt sud-coreeni, care repudiaza ceea ce in viziunea lor este un razboi valutar. Pe de alta parte, Japonia doreste sa fie o parte a Parteneriatului Trans-Pacific (TPP), unde astfel de masuri sunt combatute. Daca acest parteneriat s-ar incheia, Japonia ar trebui sa renunte la masurile protectioniste, in schimbul facilitarii schimburilor comerciale. In termeni pur rousseaunieni, ar renunta la o parte din atributiile sale, in schimbul altor beneficii, ar renunta la libertatea naturala, nelimitata, pentru libertatea adevarata, reglementata..
I firmly believe that everyone is familiar with that peculiar feeling of nostalgy. Whether this is something positive or negative is not relevant for the moment. Incredulously as it might sound, that particular feeling is not always associated with a former event, person, state of mind. On the contrary, it can be stated that it is rather undescribable on a regular basis. Furthermore, I am sure that you are also accustomed to feeling sometimes more vulnerable than usually. It is indeed a very complex problem which pertains to the realm of psychology. However, what causes nostalgy is not of paramount importance to us. On the other hand, the ways in which it affects us are due to be analyzed. Be it as it may, nostalgy is transient. To make matters worse, sometimes you are subject only to a fake nostalgy. You are under the impression that you miss something, but your state might not be that powerful to get correctly the name “nostalgy”. Then, what really is nostalgy? How can we deal successfully with it? Can anything good come out of it? These are the questions which ought to be answered. I think that there is no better way to cope with nostalgy than to yield to it, to surrender to this psychological state and to succumb to oblivion, for this is what accompanies nostalgy. One might wonder why I postulate this way of approaching nostalgy. The explanation is not a convoluted one – as mentioned beforehand, nostalgy is fleeting. Therefore, its effects are not meant to affect the individual for a long time. I am not sure whether nostalgy has some positive effects, due to the fact that this is very debatable, and it involves a great number of factors. However, as my nostalgy begins to vanish, I shall reach the end of my writing, not until I answer the last inquiry – what really is nostalgy? I believe that nostalgy is a feeling meant to remind us that we are human, no matter how much we despise this. It implies a great deal of abyssal psychology, and I even go to the extent of claiming that its source is the unconsciousness.
Nostalgy is one of the most obvious harbingers of our humanity.
In the end, I leave you with this song by Rolling Stones. After all, is not everyone chasing wild horses?
I have intended for a while to write this at exactly one year after the inception of the blog. Regardless, after wavering between these two opposite ways, I chose to pursue the one which fit better to my state of mind. Clearly, it would have been more interesting the other way, but , after the commencement of an action, I cannot procrastinate it anymore.
What is this all about, one might wonder. Well, the purpose is to explain in depth the origins of the title of this blog. Hardly could I go to the extent of claiming that it is ineffable. Under no circumstances would I conceal something which , unfortunately, lost much of its former importance.
Without further introduction, let me proceed to the explanation. I have mentioned beforehand that I would rather avoid concealing things which are not significant to me – but what about things which are so valuable to me? My thoughts, my ideas, my desires, my fulfillments, my disappointments – they all used to belong only to myself. Indeed, I was an egotist, and the truth is – I still am. There is nothing wrong in being supercilious as long as you do not let it affect your life in a nefarious way. Furthermore, it might be even propitious on some occasions. I like to believe that knowledge is power, and the thrill of acknowledging that you have reached a certain level of sagacity is the pinnacle of one’s life.But how could one be ascertained as above the average in terms of intelligence if he keeps everything for himself? Now you begin to understand why I resorted to rescinding my initial censorship – from vanity,hubris, presumptuousness. However, it was a major step forward – I made my thoughts public, thus ending an important part of my life. It was the day my fortress of solitude reached its demise. It was the day that I died. And, because I am such an egocentrist, it was the day that We died.
It is good to be back. It feels like forever since I have written something here. While I look back at what I used to think, to write, to feel, I cannot help but wondering why had I ever decided to commence writing here. Who would care about my inchoate ideas? I cannot be as supercilious as to claim that I am yet a very interesting person. I know I will be, but for the moment I prefer not to stand out of the crowd very often. As usually, my post will be filled with wonderings, with signs of self-doubt. I have never thought why I choose to be so distant from myself in my writings. Well, this should not imply that I get objective whilst I write – subjectivity is deeply interwoven with my writing. But I shouldn’t procrastinate my explanation, as I always do ( yes, these sentences seem to be ubiquitous, and I know that I try to increase the length of my post). So, as I said, I am subject to a paradox whilst writing – looking at myself condescendingly and trying to defend myself, or, better said, wavering between opposing viewpoints – one objective and one subjective – on me. I believe now that this is a method of protecting myself from doubt in the real life. I dare to think that this way i become impervious to weakness. On the other hand, never have I claimed that this is perfect, but this does not mean that I should not continue trying everything in order to strengthen myself.
In spite of my will, this will be a short post. A very short one, really. Nothing difficult, I hope, nothing too convoluted, too abstruse. Forget me for making you sick of all of these neologisms, but the best way to learn them is to repeat them. As well as that, forget my eventual grammar or vocabulary mistakes. It’s been a long time since I used English. To be more precise, I have not written, nor spoken English from my last post here, on 13th of March .
See you soon.
Initially, I had intended to write something concerning the matter of success. However, after I thought better about this, I realized that it would have been useless – after all, I have endeavored constantly in order to achieve it and I still regard it as a Utopia, for I am not interested in transient success. Conversely, I covet for a major one, immutable,steadfast. Therefore, the corollary of the subsequent statements would be that it was not something to deal with at the moment.
I have written already about time, and there is no need in reiterating my past ideas. However, the realm of time is so comprehensive, that a myriad of ideas could be related to it. However, one thought has particularly been on my mind for a while. Do not get too excited, it is something rather dull and the subject has been debated extensively. Where would I travel if I had the opportunity to transcend epochs? Historical events might seem tempting at the moment, but I am aware of the fact that the reality cannot equal my expectations. I would go, on the contrary, not in the past, but in the future – in the very last moments of this Universe, at the point of no return. Whether it will be a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or any other imaginable eschatological presumption.
Bereft of remorse or of hope, condescendingly proud or unreasonably modest, no matter how I will become over the years, nothing will matter in that moment. To witness the demise of the Universe, that would be a privilege, a Utopia for the time being and, in fact, for the foreseeable future, taking into consideration the tardiness of scientific breakthroughs. I have no intent to be deemed awkward, so I believe that arguments to support my view are necessary. First of all, we spend our lives coping with death – this would mean winning against death, against the idea of death itself – witnessing one universe perishing whilst other is brewing – for I cannot accept the fact that the end of our Universe would preclude another one’s inception. Furthermore, being there would be similar to understanding how everything works – on a subtler level, I am sure that I would become familiar with every mystery of the Universe.
Are these arguments enough? Probably not, but words do not come easy when it comes to topics like this. We spend our lives concerned over the following day, unwilling to think of what will happen after we will die – but what will happen after this Universe dies or, better said, WHILST this Universe reaches its final moment?
Omul nu este dat, ci devine. Dezideratul filozofiei existentialiste nu convine tuturor, din moment ce pentru multi este mult mai convenabil sa recurga la pretextul unui destin, unei naturi date, unor caracteristici imuabile ce reprezinta obstacole de netrecut. Cu toate acestea, valoarea de adevar a unei afirmatii nu depinde de calitatea ei de a starni fie repulsia, fie admiratia. Intr-adevar, este dur sa renunti la subterfugiul unei instante transcendente care iti coordoneaza viata dar, concomitent cu acest aparent dezavantaj, doar astfel poti fi liber , in deplinul sens al cuvantului. Fara a intra in detalii, este de mentionat faptul ca Sartre afirma ca, in scrierile lui, nu vrea sa arate cum ar trebui sa fie omul, ci doar sa il prezinte cum este, sa deconspire omul in conditia lui, fara plusuri si fara minusuri. Decenii mai tarziu, aceasta aplecare spre a descrie omul fara pretentia de a-l indrepta este inca un ideal maret, si prea putini se incumeta a incerca macar sa-l atinga. Cu toate acestea, este o dovada de ignoranta, in conditiile civilizatiei actuale, ca scrierile tale sa nu aiba macar tangential legatura cu un fel de indreptar al lui. Riscand sa declansez polemici, tin sa afirm ca asertiunea ca nu se poate vorbi despre o natura umana, de vreme ce aceasta este vesnic in schimbare, trebuie pretuita si este o conditie sine qua non a dezvoltarii intelectuale a tine cont de ea. Trebuie sa avem grija ce alegeri facem, trebuie sa cantarim cu atentie fiecare decizie, de vreme ce acestea pot fi ireversibile. Alegerile noastre vor defini ceea ce suntem, asadar nu putem risca fara motiv, nu ne putem baza pe instinct, cu toate ca, de multe ori, acesta ne poate ajuta mult mai bine decat ratiunea. Omul este libertate, este afirmatia curajoasa a aceluiasi Sartre. Dincolo de un aforism, este concomitent si o incercare de a descrie, pe cat posibil, inefabilul fapturii umane.
It is indeed a strange world – everyone seems to covet for different things, but when they accomplish their ideals they are dissatisfied. I do not want to be misunderstood – progress is necessary, and it would be more peculiar and pernicious to settle for a small fulfillment. However, what is reprehensible is that people cannot enjoy the results of their endeavors. I know this well, because I have the same drawback, though I struggle to put an end to this weakness, for it is nothing else than a weakness. Had it not been for it, I would have appreciated more my accomplishments, without renouncing at the desire to achieve more. It is important to find an equilibrium between being satisfied with your results and trying to have better ones. Hoping that I will not be deemed supercilious, I have accomplished a lot of things until now – here i have to make a digression which will nonetheless reduce the aggression of my former assertion, consisting of mentioning that in my opinion, nothing notable has been achieved hitherto -, but I leave those things unheralded.
Here should be the demise of this post, for it has not been intended for nothing else but to make some sort of resolution – finding the equilibrium mentioned beforehand.