May 23, 2024

World of Warx: Don’t panic, the stat is good!

Are there rational racists? Not only why is our principal angry, but also to everything else in the world? And what is the change actually? philosopher Matthew Warkus He offers philosophical musings on everyday issues in his “Warkus’ Welt” column.

It is even remarkable how many political and media voices have accused the activists of launching an attack on the Basic Law. This is a little strange if you think about it. After all, the “fundamental law” isn’t one physical thing that can be damaged: it’s a text that not only circulates en masse on paper and in engravings, but can also be searched for in a variety of places on the Internet. Technically speaking, stat is not a “code”, but a “type”. Even if one accepts that damage to the original can constitute an attack on the stat itself, the original in this case is not the glass wall on the Spree, but the original taken from the safe of federal and federal counsel. Takes the oath of office. In addition, the text of the Basic Law has changed nearly every year since its promulgation in 1949, a total of 67 times.

“Stat 49” is just code for code

Describing the work of the “last generation” as an attack on the constitution or even on rights and values ​​(which do not coincide with the constitution) seems to confuse the signature with the signified on several levels. The idea seems to be based on a semi-religious or rather magical way of thinking, which is troubling because in our society this kind of thinking is usually associated more with the enemies of rational society than with its friends.

See also  How did animals develop warning colours?

What finally makes things irritating is that this quasi-religious or magical thinking comes out of nowhere, so to speak. Unlike, for example, in the United States, where there is a tradition – very problematic for various reasons – of venerating the Constitution as a kind of sacred text, in Germany there is not even an elementary reverence for the Basic Law. Describing a symbolic attack on a symbol (or rather, a symbolic symbol) as “desecration” and “destruction” is not only far-fetched. Those who come into contact with this language seem to suppose that the audience they want to exasperate from is incapable of differentiating and allowing itself to be agitated by utterly unfounded pathos.