Political philosophy

Modern civilization is rather in a state of deep decline. This is a bitter confession, but it is not the same as despair. If everything went wrong – and everything really went wrong – let’s return to fullness and health, let's restore everything as it was -- in the state that existed before it went bad. Moreover, the rejection of progress by no means prohibits the recognition of the improvement of certain aspects of life. But it just doesn’t make it binding law.

The word ‘freedom’ has a powerful hold on the hearts of folks in the States. Invoking it has caused very intense and sometimes contradictory reactions over the years.

Historical chronicles report that Galileo renounced the heliocentric picture of the world on 22 June 1633. Urban folklore adds that Galileo muttered to himself "and so it goes round and round". This moment is usually thought of as the drama of “a progressive scientific worldview in the struggle against medieval backwardness”. In fact it was one episode in an act of God-killing that stretched over several centuries of Western European history. When in the XIX century Nietzsche proclaimed "God is dead, you killed him - you and me!", he was only stating a fait accompli. He has heroically taken the blame upon himself, trying to live, think, and create with this unbearable knowledge of the Western nihilistic abyss. If there is no God, there is nothing. If the earth is round, material and revolves around the same material sun in infinite - and again - purely material! - space, then there is no God. And there is no world, His world.

Beginning with our neo-structuralist approach, we recognize nationalism as a complex structure, a framework of intersubjective relations which is of a particular post-formative essence, thus, we do not share the thesis of Gellner (1997) and Guaresti (2000) that identify nationalism with a particular foundational essence, that precedes y gives shape to Nations and States, meaning that – according to these authors– first there would be Nationalism, and then the Nation and then the State, to which we prefix and join to the critique of John Hall (2000), who in his book «The State of The Nation», analyzes Gellner’s theory, concluding that, effectively, not every society is a nation. Thus we conclude that first, the concepts of State and Nation (cultural and politico-juridical) emerge, and finally, that of Nationalism as an exaltation of this latter two.