Proper Antagonism vs. Anti-Agonism
November 16, 2005
We constantly hear calls for irenicism, charity, tolerance, etc. from all sides in the kulturkampf and general political fracasing. People do not understand conflict and integrity. They could take a lesson from the following. Preferring Niccolo Machiavelli’s pragmatism and moral relativism to the moral absolutism of sixteenth-century anti-colonialist Francisco de Vitoria, the 20th Century political philosopher Eric Voegelin wrote, “The idea that in a conflict both sides can be equally right or wrong, or rather that the strife of existence is fundamentally beyond right or wrong, is for [Vitoria] unbearable. His victor cannot bow before the vanquished, respecting the mystery of rise and fall in which the roles might be reversed; he must defile the enemy and execute him as a criminal.” The problem is not a lack of “kindness;” it is a lack of principled antagonism emanating from a mature, i.e., tragic, conception of society.
This periogogic intervention has been sponsored by the Center for Ecumenical Realism/Cynicism and the Advancement of Orthodox Political Theology, a Jape-based initiative.This is Proper Antagonism vs. Anti-Agonism in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: Various & Sundry | Next: Off the Pill, “Open to New Life,” But Condoms OK? | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry: