My father taught me to play chess when I was a child. At first, of course, always lost. Then, slowly, I began to improve until the fateful game where I could beat him.
During the period when I was improved significantly (that summer, I remember, I read Dostoevsky's The Idiot) at a certain point I realized something. If I could make a "game plan", a strategy to get the win or just to earn a piece, often happened that the moves made to implement that strategy, attacking moves, were unknown to me too defensive moves who went to parry his attack plans against me. Always playing with in mind a "plan" (which was constantly reviewed, updated, rearrangement) to prevent possible dangers even ignoring them.
This confirms what I read in the preliminary indications of an ancient manual of chess (which I always had my father put in his hand): the author recommends "Never move without a purpose!" (Followed soon after moved casual remark that almost certainly weaken their position and make up lost time that the opponent can take advantage). This rule was immediately fascinated me, and I started to think if it were a rule that could also apply to life in general. At that period, as a boy, I was obsessed with the problem of finding general rules to follow to live in a better way.
The rule of life by pursuing a project or simply placing a rule of the goals is certainly worthy of attention for anyone in search of "formulas" for a good life. Wanting to follow the analogy with chess, we could say that if we pursue the project, if we set ourselves targets and act accordingly, our actions will lead to development of our being that may be helpful to respond to unforeseen situations.
Many years after the first experiences I mentioned at the beginning chess, studying philosophy is unbeatable in action theories (GH von Wright, Habermas, Bubner ...) I got interested in the matter. Aristotle defines an action as behavior aimed at achieving a certain goal. According to von Wright means to act intentionally causing a change in the world.
have an intention, a goal, seems to be part of the very concept of action, and action can be evaluated for their effectiveness with which it can achieve its purpose, or in respect of the rationality of the purpose for more (opens here all the discourse on practical rationality and ethics ...). An action is rational if effectively achieves its purpose. One goal is rational if it is consistent with the general aims, that is, if part of a coherent plan for improvement of their conditions (and, better yet, the conditions of all that surrounds us ...).
But let us ask ourselves: how far can always be useful act in a rational way? You can apply the general rule of chess, "Never move without a purpose!" their lives, turning it into "an action without ever end!"?
Sometimes there is no clear purpose for which we are doing something, but it's better that way. In certain contexts let "instincts" or "intuition" may be better to be guided by reason. What are these contexts?
Think about what would happen if making love to know exactly pretendessimo because we do one thing rather than another.
Another context in which the act rationally may be blocking or counterproductive is that of a relaxed and intimate conversation between friends or between partners, where beauty is just the "letting oneself be" mental associations, even having the ability to follow those the other (as do the fun in lovemaking is not only follow their own desires but also be able to hear and follow those of the partner). Something similar occurs in the communication between patient and therapist in a psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy or simply in the so-called "active listening" to all his relations help.
There is an entire field of situations in which having a specific objective can be counterproductive. I think of the artistic creation, but also to some extent in scientific research. In these contexts, as far as I know, is part often with vague ideas, insights, problems to solve that you do not know the solution. You work on this very vagueness, the idea of \u200b\u200bsomething that we want to communicate but that is not clear to ourselves, a riddle that haunts us, on a node that we can not resolve. The solution, the work accomplished, the road is built by, without first knowing exactly where will lead our work (he had already theorized Plato when he raised the issue of sophistry can not answer the question on the quest for knowledge: if I already know I do not need to know, I do not know if I do not know what to look for, and he responded with his theory of knowing how to remember ...).
A final (but no less important!) Context is that of heuristic dialogue thus established by Franca D'Agostini poisoned Truth, "you have a dialogue when A heuristic maintains pe B supports not-p, and A and B are interested in ascertaining the truth, then you compare, not so much as to have reason to know who is right and what is the best reason. " This kind of dialogue is essential when dealing with disputes over values, cultural differences that lead to confrontations between cultures. Issues are typical of non-violent conflict management theories (Gandhi, Capitini, Galtung, Patfoort and others) but also of the hermeneutic tradition (which has always Franca D'Agostini "distillate" some basic rules in his recent Truth poisoned )
Maybe then we could return to the issue of the "Never move without a purpose!" and say that if we want to apply it to life we \u200b\u200bhave to keep turning it into "No action without awareness of the meaning."
free and creative in its relations with others, in contexts where we exercise our freedom and creativity we can (must) give up the idea for a stated purpose, a clear action plan, and accept the idea of \u200b\u200baction without purpose, or for a purpose not clear, however, despite the clear sense of what we're doing, even just for distinguish it from other contexts in which instead of a specific purpose and rational action in relation to it are fundamental.
More generally, so it's important to always try to recognize the experiences that you are experiencing: being present in situations, consistent or inconsistent with the context, but still be in relationship with what surrounds us and with ourselves.
free and creative in its relations with others, in contexts where we exercise our freedom and creativity we can (must) give up the idea for a stated purpose, a clear action plan, and accept the idea of \u200b\u200baction without purpose, or for a purpose not clear, however, despite the clear sense of what we're doing, even just for distinguish it from other contexts in which instead of a specific purpose and rational action in relation to it are fundamental.
More generally, so it's important to always try to recognize the experiences that you are experiencing: being present in situations, consistent or inconsistent with the context, but still be in relationship with what surrounds us and with ourselves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment