How To Tell If A Scorpio Man

translate Franz's article appeared under the title-Hinkelammert Kritik of Political Oekonomie, Religionskritik Humanismus und der Praxis. in number 2 of 2010 the German magazine Marxistische Blaetter-communist, because it marked the beginning of a debate, which appeared later in the same journal, and we seem to iinteresse significant in the current political and cultural . Obviously, then, we will consider the whole debate.

Stefano Garroni

In crisis in which we live today and that annnciano for the future, it is undoubtedly necessary to discuss what, today, can mean humanism. I intend to present some arguments in this regard. But before doing so, I would like to quickly analyze what humanism meant in Modena. I intend to do this very quickly and then to board a key moment in our history, which is closely linked to what, today, humanism can mean. This key point is the French Revolution. It comes at a time, in which the world market has established itself as the capitalist market. The humanism of the French Revolution is still mostly ( äußerst ) reduced to a man's abstract humanism, which is seen as proprietary. But this very French Revolution, which flows into a pure bourgeois revolution, at the same time based categories, from which you can establish a new humanism.

They are mainly two categories: on the one hand, they provoke a reaction to the overall reduction of human rights to those of abstract man, the principal owner, based on a situation of extreme exploitation and forced labor in the form of mass slavery. On the other hand, in the Revolution were placed politico-legal category of citizenship. These became the basis of modern democracy, al still limited to white men and owners. Relying on the category of citizenship and its continuous extension causes a movement for human rights, which defines the future struggles for the emancipation of man. The man as a citizen is not necessarily a citizen, but can be represented emancipation, which extend beyond bourgeois society.

First here is the emancipation of slaves, women and the working class. It can symbolize the depth of the conflict through three major deaths: the death of Olympia de Gouges, who represents the right of women to become citizens and who was beheaded. Similarly died guillotined Babeuf, which is the right of association for workers. Toussaint-Louverture, the liberator of the slaves in Haiti, was arrested and killed, under the Emperor Napoleon. (P.72).

The so-called claims of emancipation was the product of the French Revolution, but reversed against it, the fact that the revolution came ever more clearly defined as bourgeois. Later appeared demanded more of emancipation, like that of the colonies, culture and nature exploited and destroyed. This emancipation costringno most thrilling in the system brghese confrontardi with the sacrifices, h are the product of his stessosvilupo. In this sense, we feel a new humanism. That is, the humanism of the living man as subject, against the reduction of bourgeois humanism all'umansimodel owner as part of the market, which he soon tendency to recognize as the only human right: ; the property (72). These lote for emancipation have achieved significant successes, as underlying human rights, which are now entered in the Constitution. However, the reduction of human rights the right to property has a tendency to cancel all the others again.

Currently, the strategy of globalization, which immediately produced a number of disasters, once again a great opportunity, on behalf dellla Totalize market and pfoprietà private Codest the nullification of Human Rights as a living subject-rights which are the result of the struggle for emancipation of the last centuries, but this is also the problem humanism today.

to the merits of this issue, I begin with an analysis of humanism, for that after the French Rivouzione and until the first half of the ninth century worked against the reduction of human relations to relations between commodities. As was already the case in the formulation bourgeois humanism of the eighteenth century, this new formulation of the subject of humanism, criticism of religion-in the sense of critical Uun against it-was an element essential : formulation of humanism and criticism of religion should always be hand in hand.

Here I will build on the critique of religion, which formulates the young Marx, the Ascope to analyze what this becomes critical in the later Marx and how it reports to the criticism of religion, which is located in the theology of liberation. I'd start with some quotes that might show this starting position:

1. In the Preface to his doctoral thesis in 1841, Marx says that 'philosophy', which in this work has already seen as critical theory, are against all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest deity. Here, the human self-consciousness is the highest deity of deities against any earthly or heavenly. In Marx, self-consciousness must always be understood as self-conscious, "consciousness can not be other than be fit and being conscious of man and the actual process of life: self-awareness is therefore the human conscience, as if himself in his real-life process.

2. In his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right of 1844, Marx said: "The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the highest essence for the man himself, that ends with the categorical imperative to get rid of all those relationships in which man is decreased essence, enslaved, despised. "Instead of self as the highest human god is also the place expression, secono which man is the highest essence for man. Marx also shows that when you declare something different man maximum essence you end up doing something less human, enslaved and dispezzato.

If we combine the two quotations, we have two fundamental propositions of this, which shows how the paradigm dellla Marxist critique of religion:

1. Critical theory stands against any earthly or heavenly god, who does not agree that è'uomo is highest essence for man itself.

2. Critical theory is opposed to any earthly or heavenly deity in whose name the man is not the highest essence for man, but precisely because of this, something fell, enslaved, despised.

Queso diffeenziazione counts as a criterion for religion, not as an attack locknut it. This is true, as it moves from Marx, that religion thus becomes superfluous. But even if religion does not would be superfluous, this criticism, however, confirms its full value, since its meaning is confined to a criterion of differentiation. (73).

Marx says something for our representation of Marx is quite strange: God became man, but he says that is not in a religious sense, but yes anthropology. He also says what man does, if it becomes for the man himself, the highest essence, then, if the man wants to become the god of man himself. Again, this is something completely different from our normal shows. The man throws away all those relationships, in which an essence is impoverished, enslaved and dispezzata. And 'this practice, which makes it possible for another world. In this practice we have the autorealizazione man. This is the paradigm of the Marxist critique of religion and at the same time, the Marxian paradigm of humanism. And, at the same time, it seems to be the paradigm of critical thinking as such.

eligione This is the criticism of the young Marx. Here is not merely criticized the religion, so religion is rather CONCP ( erfassen ) critically. That religion is not dead, as Marx expected, this is quite secondary.

Our analysis has so far focused exclusively on the young Marx. The Marx later pursued further this critique of religion, but change the words with which it is expressed: the criticism of religion is becoming critical to fetishism. (74). This is not no cut neto, but even a simple exchange of words, rather than a change of centroid . In the preface to his dissertation, Marx's denunciation of worldly and heavenly, in its Critique of Philosophy of Law Hegel, Mara proclaimed the end of the criticism of religion. Now Marx no longer speaks of the heavenly gods, but rather than land, which he called fetishes. But that criticism of the worldly gods, for Marx, is in no way complete, it rather appears in the center, under the name of criticism of the fetishism in relation to the market, money and capital. [1] And 'This is one of the reasons why he changed his language. It seems to me that you also give another reason. The criticism of religion runs always the danger of being directed against a single religion. The rivendicazionne of Marx, however, a universal claim, then el is not limited to a critique of Christianity, with which in fact has begun: he continues his criticism, to get to the heart of political economy, he turns against divinity experienced, worldly and can develop it scientifically. Not you can have empirical experience more of the celestial, as they are invisible to become visible through the celestial stessidei of the worldly, few of these make a body visibly impoverished man enslaved and despised: just the critique of policy can show how worldly of these are capable of this and what are the laws that follow. This is exactly the task of critical political economy. [2]

The Marx later express his qusto imperativo9 categorical: "sviiluppa Capitalist production, therefore, only the technique and the calculation ( Kombination ) of the process of social production, as it stretched nllo time affects the well-springs and sources of all wealth: the land and workers. Now, it is not only men but also of nature, which for Marx as the expansion body of men. There is no human life, no life of nature. (74).

The Marxian critique of religion, when it takes the form of criticism of the fetishism, is a critique of the worldly, which are false gods. Therefore, the criticism presupposes a criterion to distinguish what is false. This is the same criterion, that Marx developed in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law : man is the highest essence for man himself. Without this criterion, the entire critique of fetishism has not any sense. But there is also another dimension, dunnque, in Marx can also be developed with other words. And 'what Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach (1845), in' German Ideology (1845-47, but for the first time in appparsa 1932) and in the end what makes Manifesto (1848). The critics note on the criterion of the objective world, completely separate from the subjectivity.

Marx exposes the subjectivity of this world objective in the First Thesis on Feuerbach: "The main mistake of all materialism up to now, including Feuerbach, is that the object, the real, the tangible is conceived only in the form of intuition, but not as a human activity significantly, as a practice, that is not subjectively.

Exactly the same argument, Feuerbach, Marx says that he does not, therefore, the significance of revolutionary or practical-critical. This ultimate is, of course, for all practical activities -critihe.

Take the object sempliicemente as the subject implies the reduction of objectivity and not properly assess the objectivity that is subjective. The object is subjective, for Marx, is an objective truth. Here is the inn game, Report for the subject / object, there viam kin against Descartes, Kant or Hegel. Quwat subjectivity is objectively given. The object always involves a dimension of human practice and, as such, is subjective. (74).

When Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of the Russian Revolution, makes the moves from this subjectivity and derives from his conception of democracy: she sees this very subjective subject to the danger of being sacrificed in the name of a false objectivity and subjectivity of this oppression, for her, is a danger to socialism itself.

In the tenth Theses on Feuerbach, Marx concludes that the point of view of materialismoè the old bourgeois society, the view of the new is what socialized humanity.

Here human society is not some kind of marking to distinguish it from animal society. Rather, it is opposed to middle-class members and is a project ... In this context, human society is a society that already has that status, or has the project to become human.

The company has become or is about to become human, for Marx, is contempornamente as socialized humanity. For this reason he can say "human society, or the 'human socialized". So anchquesto must again have a sense I determined, as a point of view too abstractly analytical bourgeois society is 'socializzara'. But both expressions have Marx quoted in the same meaning, quality: here it is dellla umanizzara society, in which man becomes or became such.

I have no doubt that Marx says here that by inferring his categorical imperative, he said in Critique of Hegel's philosophy of public law , namely, that the company has become umanaè this, so the 'yuomo is for man dtersso the Supreme Being. And 'the society of man, which is free to all those relationships that made a man be decreased, shiavizzato and despised.

But what he says in other words, I think one reason is that here Marx is looking for a criterion for atività practical-critical. That man for both men weave a maximum essence, is not a criterion compote. CERTAME is given an orientation, however, Marx still needs a policy. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx h again this criterion, but it says in the Communist Manifesto .

"Instead DellaVecchia bourgeois society with its classes and class contradddizioni, is the association, in which the free development of each is the libefo development of all."

From this time on, this is the criterion for the road, which is Human maximum essenz \u0026lt;man himself.

This criterion is a criterion for action from razionlità than human. From this moment on sensitive human activity becomes practice [3] since become subject ... (75).

The criterion is: the development of each is the condition for the development of all. It can be the same in other ways: the life of each is the condition for the life of all or: self-realization of each is the condition autorealizzazioe for everyone. Marx speaks of the free development of each, but this freedom is not an additional predicate. But the development of each other as a condition of development is the definition of freedom for Marx . (75 °) [4] Marx contrasts this criterion of rationality to the policy of razionlità dellla bourgeois society. The latter is, I become myself, so I win another and marginalizes them. Said in terms of classical greek I have proof of being free, because I own the slaves.

The paradigm of critical thinking finds its completion in Marxist mentioned criterion. This shows that there is no vfrattura between the young and the mature Marx, the development of a single location. Marx broke with Feuerbach, as he writes Thesis on Feuerbach: a long time he had broken with the Feuerbach Qusta fottura is already fully expressed in the preface to his doctoral thesis [5]

---

[1] - So, for Marx There are two levels of religion: the celestial and the mundane: if the latter is the material basis of the first, then the criticism of the first remains incomplete until it is exercised even the critics at the second level.

[2] - It should be noted: in Marx, the critique of political economy is not an end in itself, but depending on the process of liberation of man: for this critical to the heavenly and earthly gods are the two sides of one coin.

[3] - Cf as it appears practice in tsf.doc.

[4] - The reason Marx Leben Leben erzeugendes and the Hegelian of Befreiung , of \u200b\u200bcourse, are put together, but are also married to Kant, 2554: 138, 173, which condemns suicide, seen as a paradox of freedom, ie of its use against man and not because he humanly alive, please keep in mind, too, Kant, 2554: 183, which highlights the link between the principle of erzeugendes Leben Leben conception of pleasure and not as a condition, but even as movement activities.

[5] - criticism of Althusser about Marx's humanism. Not so much against Marxism Althusser 'Soviet', but rather against some reaction to it, which ended up losing the science of Marxism in the name of humanism. (Rauber, 8351: 16a). Althusser does not accept that, in Marxism, the philosophy is dissolved in science (history) (Rauber, 8351: 16s). What is the point of explaining to Althusser groped Marxist philosophy ((Rauber, 8351: 17). For Althusser, the limit of the essential dialectic of Hegel lies in his being linked to teleologism idea: in other words, the systematic closure due the fact that the idea is coming to visit with her identity. (Rauber, 8351:18). Equivoco dell'antiteleologismo is shown by the same A., that in fact it has both a free predetermined punto de llegada, and as devoid of any punto de llegada (Rauber, 8351: 18b) [5] inconsistency of Althusser (Rauber, 8351: 19). Rauber, 8351: 20 of all Specialties of the Soviet Union about Marx / Hegel, Marx uses because they do not understand how Hegel against Hegel. Rauber, 8351: 20th recognizes the presence not only of Hegel in Marx, but in general the classical German philosophy (FCT). E. Dussell about the presence, in Marx, Schelling (Rauber, 8351: 20b)

How To Paint Tech Deck Trucks

Secularism and Culture - Alessandra Ciattini -

Secularism and culture (speech at the III Mediterranean Festival, October 23, 2010)

This paper is divided into several points, which indicates to facilitate understanding. Inspired by the split between material life and spiritual life, which I believe characterizes contemporary society. He tries to show why he produced this split, and describes some significant events. It attempts to give substance to the argument that only the secular approach to different social and cultural events can reconcile this split. Finally, it shows how secularism addresses the problem of death, which generally is thought to provide an effective response only religion. I emphasize that the different religions cultural events, which differ from other forms of world views to their reference to the supernatural.

1) The split between material life and spiritual life. My brief intervention builds on the analysis of cultural and social transformations triggered by the so-called process of globalization, accompanied as it is known by a sort of religious revival, which is manifested in the spread of New Religious Movements. As you will see this perspective is justified by the fact that the result of these profound changes in life seems to revive the traditional dichotomy between material / spiritual life, which - as I shall try to show - is completely unacceptable from the standpoint of a layman, as I understand.

The end of East European socialism marked and accompanied the beginning of a new phase of capitalist society, in which the market has become the regulatory tool of social life in its complexity and differentiation, blasting gradually all those measures and those safeguards which limit the full functioning and hamper the success of commercial reason. So, for example, working relationships have been redesigned, taking into account only the logic of profit and knowingly neglecting the observance of those rights (right to work, adequate pay, health, security) are formally approved at international and national (Our Constitution ). The result was the lowering of labor costs, increased job insecurity and unemployment especially among young people (this is international phenomenon and not only Italian). He tried to give another organization in the field of education and knowledge (schools, universities, research institutions, cultural institutions etc.), Which in the name of modernization and rationalization, has increasingly tied to the market these institutions and enterprises, professionalisation courses of study and research by making the identification and production of technological innovation in order to produce objects competitive on the world market.

This transformation, which affects all sectors of society, therefore, brings with it the subordination of our lives to the economic reason in the name of efficiency and international competition, which then take advantage and will benefit only those in the world of production have a leading role. This is demonstrated by the fact that in recent years, the United States the overall size of the wages payable to employees is decreased compared to the wealth that ends each year in the hands of the owners of income and shareholders of companies both nationally and internationally. These are facts that have pushed our influential opinion leaders to talk about the development of new forms of poverty even among those who have a job, which they believe should be removed from the same tools that created them (the unchallenged dominance of the market ).

The economic rule of reason is also seen in the fact that economic power is maintained by individuals has become increasingly aggressive and decide claims of our lives and our future, establishing for example, if a country has industries that are or will be private because is cheaper to produce elsewhere where the higher the remuneration.

2) Meaning of life lies in religion. But - as shown - several studies on the so-called religious revival in our day - a society dominated by the efficiency, absolute asocial individualism (to use the expression coined by Hobsbawm), the principle of "from as little as possible in return of possible "consciously or unconsciously neglect the question of meaning, the meaning of human life, which can not be placed in the immediate purposes of our behavior.

This aspect is well highlighted by Jean Baubérot, professor emeritus of sociology of religions at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, who with the policy pursued by President Sarkozy declared that the rule for the latter - as a company - is supposed to deal with the economic management of society, while it is for the religions offer individuals the opportunity to grasp the meaning and the meaning of the man in the world.

Baubérot embracing the split that characterizes capitalist society between the economic and the ethical and political, between material and spiritual, but also underlines the fact that Sarkozy - like many politicians of our time - has a negative view of secularism , it found to be unable to make the principles and values \u200b\u200bthat are important for cohabitation, which instead are present in it, although no reference to the supernatural.

Baubérot Not only is aware of this division, a fact which is not only formal but also a painful tear of our lives, which are thus in fact guided by different principles and contradictory. Other scholars - such as the British sociologist Bryan R. Wilson - evidence that contemporary society dominated by individualism array of liberal, has inevitably need religion, because it would result only from the altruistic sentiments, solidarity, the desire to go beyond the immediate satisfaction of their needs and desires. In short, religion and the principles which govern economic life, would follow those feelings and collective representations that underlie all forms of social life, and without which any society would be in crisis to dissolve.

For this reason, Wilson stresses the need to give more room for religion in various forms in social life, that brings to man a significance that transcends the dynamics of selfish material life and economic space that would have been instead reduced by the process of secularization and secularization, by which we tried with varying success to separate religion from the political institutions, making it a private matter, on the conscience of individuals.

These considerations also allow Wilson to explain the spread of new forms of religiosity that characterizes contemporary society, such as Pentecostalism and neopentecostalismo, seen by some as the religion of the twenty-first century for its ability to attract loyal, tired of religions traditional, with its forms of ritual and the engaging charisma of its leaders. short, in the opinion of Wilson, for example, half a billion Pentecostals in the world would find a refuge in their faith, a consolation, compensation for the evils of the world identified with the selfish principles that govern the material life, the loss of importance of the individual due to the bureaucratization of everyday life, with isolation of the typical metropolis. Ultimately, Wilson also notes the division between material life and spiritual life - has already been observed and analyzed in the nineteenth century as a phenomenon typical of capitalist society - and hopes that it finds its inspiration, its foundations in the supernatural dimension.

How the Catholic Church, shaken by a profound crisis, it seems to me that it is keenly aware of this split, which from his point of view allows it to claim a social and political role, in various contexts that had saw scaled and questioned. Given the universality of the Church, this claim is an international phenomenon and manifests itself in various countries (like Mexico, France, Italy) and in various forms, such as the explicit reference to his religious faith made by political leaders of various countries, the use of Catholic symbols in the political process, the reference to theological concepts that should be incorporated into the laws of the States and then imposed on all believers (even of different faiths) and non-believers. In this perspective, I would say that the Catholic Church, despite some criticism of unbridled capitalism made by John Paul II accepts the division of which it was said before and I gladly accept the role of citizens anxious to dispense with the spiritual significance of contemporary society is constantly contradicted by the social dynamics, to guide and console their souls towards addressing the afterlife and the transcendent.

Some have identified this strategy behind Catholic also important policy objectives. For example, the great battle for hours to get lost in the European constitution that refer to the "Christian roots" (as the preamble speaks generically of "cultural heritage, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe") would have the effect of making Europe a bulwark against religious culture of Islam, which they bear most of the immigrants arrive in our continent. It 'very likely that, if he had accomplished this, they would have introduced additional points of conflict between Europeans and immigrant communities and this would hamper the already complex and difficult process of coexistence and integration.

E 'was observed that the religious revival in recent years is also the result of downsizing the state's role, which precisely because of the globalization process, we talked about, lost or left to decay many of its prerogatives. In fact, as pointed out by Hobsbawm (2007: 69) the State is faced with a series of problems that result from the globalized world (think of the economic crisis, immigration) without having the right tools to do so. Moreover, as we have seen, the formative and educational , exercised by the nation state in the twentieth century is in decline for the process of dismantling public schools and universities and is also greatly weakened by the widespread penetration of mass media which seem to be the main source of our way of representing reality. Some may say that is not entirely dead recall the so-called "civil religion" that makes the state a transcendent entity and death in war, a sacrifice (a term not a religious event), but I wonder to what extent it is shared in popular level. The observation of the monuments funeral rhetoric and stereotyped in honor of the dead, appeared after the immense tragedy of the First World War (nine million dead), suggests that this cult has deep roots, even though politicians often recall it.

3) Overcoming the split . Spiritualism and immanence. As we have seen, so far I have talked about the split between material life and spiritual life which I believe characterizes contemporary society and try to show how the secular, if properly understood and practiced, trying to solve, by providing a frame sacralized and shared values, in which the religious and cultural differences to develop.

To develop this second part of my speech, I have to do a critical analysis of the very notion of spirituality. It arises from the dualistic conception of man, in which the material dimension is opposed to the spiritual, as well as the body contrapporrebbe spirit. This dualistic conception characterizes Christianity and all those philosophies, which are created by reaction to certain aspects of the Enlightenment and positivism, and that makes union with God, with the absolute ultimate end. In many cases these are proposed to overcome this division with an ambiguous pantheistic mysticism, but the Catholic Church considers contrary religious orthodoxy.

Just the fact that the term "spirituality" inevitably brings with it the acknowledgment of the division in both men and society, just because I refer instead to a conception immanentist - which stands for objective to overcome this tear - I it is more fruitful to talk about culture as it set out the intangible aspects of social life.

Based on the anthropological tradition consider the culture of every intellectual production of men, whose objective is the overall representation of nature and society prepared to answer specific questions that arise from the matters on which to question him in a certain context and a certain time. In this perspective the very notion of the supernatural is the result of the development of men, which in some contexts and conditions are encouraged to split into two different dimensions of their knowledge their own individual and social life.

At this point it is also necessary to clarify what I mean because I consider secularism and immanence is immanent. To understand the concept of immanence in the world and history that abandons the search for the supernatural in the world and finds himself in history and the meaning and purpose. For this reason, secularism immanentist establishes the separation between political institutions and the various churches and religious organizations, to prevent religious or sectarian interference can influence social and political life, challenging effective equality of citizens recognized by the Charter founding. Obviously I'm aware that some do not propose something original, since the Enlightenment have attributed to an immanent end men, inviting them to become actors in aware of their history, which should build on existing conditions, trying to achieve alternative designs in the game of power relations and the ability of hegemony. So, for the immanent game that men are playing is quite earthly and mundane and can not be addressed and overcome with the reference to the supernatural.

immanentist Secularism is the extent to which relies on human values, the result of historical and social process and certainly not made sacred, so this criticism, changes and adapt to new historical and social contexts. It should be noted, however, that for example in the case of the Italian Constitution has spoken of rigidity, because it provides a special procedure of modifiability and considers some of its unchangeable principles. Which of course does not mean that they have an absolute basis. Just surrender to the sacred nature of values, which mainly characterizes the Catholic Church, which refers to the moral and natural law, makes it possible to identify of shared values \u200b\u200bthat can be implemented by individuals of different cultural and religious orientations in a society that will ensure pluralism. Different is the attitude of the Protestant Churches for which ethics comes from faith and therefore can not be imposed on those who do not share. In addition, they establish a direct relationship with the faithful in contrast to what makes the Catholic Church, which is mediating the relationship community / God

4) values \u200b\u200bof secularism immanentist. If you look at the documents (such as the Italian Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc.) That are intended to indicate the principles which should establish the national and international life, we find in them a set of values, which may also be subject to debate, as evidenced for example by criticism from African, Arab and Asian to the individualistic nature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The purpose of these values \u200b\u200band principles is to make possible and enriching coexistence between cultures and religions, which from an anthropological point of view are also a cultural thing. However, respect for religious and cultural differences, such as those in the Italian Constitution, in my opinion need not turn into a relativistic extremist attitude, in fact, our Charter Fondante condemns those organizations political intolerance and violence that make their flag, as is clear in Article XII of the transitional and final provisions. The latter prohibits the re-organization, in whatever form, the dissolved fascist party, under alas largely rejected. Moreover, recognition of religious and cultural differences must be within a certain context, that does not undermine the principles upon which the civil society. In this sense, our Constitution provides that the exercise of the rights (eg freedom to express and practice their religion, the Constitution makes no mention of non-believers) should not be in contradiction with the Italian legal system.

In the Italian Constitution the recognition of the dignity of the human person, not based on a hypothetical divine spark in us, is divided into a series of rules that include both civil rights and social rights, such as the right to work, the right to a fair remuneration for their work, the right to a free and dignified. All rights which have their foundation only in the desire to give the company a form of civil organization and participatory politics to a certain extent, the design of which have resulted from the upheaval caused by the appalling tragedy of since World War II.

6) Formal and substantive. The denial of immanence. E 'widespread view that our Constitution is a document very advanced and that, if fully put into practice, would make our society more just, fairer, less adversarial. It 'important to dwell on this desire to give concrete form to our Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it highlights another division and another contradiction, which put the crisis of secular immanentist, I was talking about. It happens often that the cards contain the fundamental principles recognized and approved by many, considered the most complete expression of our civilization not only legal, but it also happens that these principles remain letter dead, empty words, we are called wearily and with little conviction to legitimize behavior even sign anything. For example, some European countries to indict, because their legislation and the actual treatment reserved for immigrants who landed on our shores, violating the most elementary human rights, which are also stem from the same cultural and moral history European Union. In this case, the split occurs and the contradiction between the fundamental terms of the Charter, which are then placed in a dimension other than our civil and social life, which is not substantiated and reshaped by them. Because of this fundamental Cards become transcendent (but not in sense of the supernatural), that is distant and separate from the political and social dynamics, which should govern and revitalize.

Some scholars have identified this process in the same European bourgeois society from which have sprung all those principles and values \u200b\u200bthat inspired the founding of the cards I mentioned, but in which these principles and values \u200b\u200bcan not be put into practice specifically for same characteristics of our social and political life. Thus, for example, our Constitution, Art. 33 states that science and art are free, as they have free education. On the other hand, the rule of reason and economic and market developments, we already discussed, requires a transformation of universities, government of which has an important role in the economic power represented by individuals external to them and on boards of directors. Economic power that inevitably subordinerà teaching and research interests, largely by putting into question the principles of freedom established first. All this is provided by the DDL Gelmini praised and criticized.

The need to concretize and substantiate the principles and values \u200b\u200bwith the attitude of immanence is also present in the religious sphere. I refer to the so-called liberation theology developed in Latin America, which has set the problem of realization of the Kingdom of God on earth, even if in his opinion, the latter would obviously divine ground. In particular, it seems interesting to the concept developed by Sergio Arce Martinez, a Latin American Protestant theologian, who speaks of "love effective" to indicate the desire to embody in concrete social and political institutions of the Gospel message, which calls just to love our neighbor as ourselves.

7) Death to the laity. I conclude this report I hope not too boring, referring to the theme of death, generally considered the highlight of religions, because in front of the annulment of the man himself would seek a way out of warranty and would be in ' immortality prefigured by Christianity and not only (of course there are other ways to address the issue of death).

As you will also see the secular thought has to offer her own vision and a way out of the risk of cancellation, but does not pretend to completely dissolve the anxiety related to the idea of \u200b\u200bdeath. I had to face this problem not only for anthropological and philosophical reasons, but also because I had to deal with the death of my father who was an atheist and for which we wanted to organize a secular funeral, thus respecting his wishes. In addition, a few years ago a student of mine, who had lost his father early, he asked me to do a thesis on these issues, touching on particular the question of the funeral and lay properly considering death as a social and cultural not merely individual.

In the case of my father, I can say that the funeral was the result of spontaneous behavior of the inhabitants of a village in the Maremma, which over the years with my family and I have established a deep relationship of friendship and solidarity. In fact, when on a hot May day in the early afternoon we arrived to the country with no coffin of the traditional cross, we found all the people in the streets waiting for us. We stopped and the men came to the machines, they took the coffin with no religious symbols, which was my father, who was not wearing the traditional dress Dark of the party, but was wrapped in a white sheet (as requested by reference to pre-Christian funeral rites). In a few minutes sad procession was organized by the square had come to the village cemetery. Even there, in a very spontaneous commemoration was organized: those who wanted it, said a few words that called to mind the experiences of a direct relationship with my father, events that I myself did not know.

Everything was done in line with what Comte called subjective immortality, without which those attending the ceremony were aware of it. For subjective immortality means the only form of immortality available from the secular point of view on human beings, which is the ability to continue to live in the memory of our fellow man, which helped to remind us that we gave to our civil life. Obviously this is a possibility that is not done forever, because the alternation of historical events can be forgotten for even after return to join the collective memory. In this sense, the human community itself is formed by both living things from non-living, which are perpetuated in what they have built and in the way of living have an impact on their peers intellectually and emotionally. They are alive to the extent that they live in those who knew them, loved appreciated.

As you can see the subjective immortality we deeply rooted in the social fabric and also allows us to acquire a role in which recognize and where to convey the uncertainties and anxieties that inevitably afflict our inner life and personal. It is an answer - I do not know how appropriate - at the painful thought for all people, who fear the idea of \u200b\u200bbeing buried after his death in a complete oblivion, no longer had anything in common with others, lose all opportunity to influence them. may sound weird but this concept is not so far from the eschatological religions of the peoples extraoccidentali for which the afterlife was not a prize to be won, but it was just the place to go but to continue living in a more happy than earthly.

In conclusion I would emphasize that subjective immortality is certainly nothing compared to that objective, foreshadowed by many religions, but I would add that I accept the views of Freud, who distinguishes between religious man and irreligious man notes that the first unlike the second, does not react to the feeling of impotence and insignificance of human looking for a clearing and absolute support. Irreligious is the one who resigns himself to the insignificant man in the wide world and concentrates solely on his own strength to cope.