Those who want to be spiritual cannot alienate themselves from the world, they shouldn’t expose themselves to Marx’s criticism that religion is the opium of peoples. On the other hand, let us not neglect that Marx’s criticism can actually be turned against himself: interest in the problems of work and society can become an opium that distracts from asking what sense living has. Despite this, the spiritual person cannot take refuge in an abstract spirituality, with the excuse that it is the essential; from this point of view, even Jesus can be criticized, regarding the criticism that he addressed to Martha, who, unlike Mary, who was listening to him, instead dedicated herself to household chores (Lk 10:38-42); Jesus could be reminded of what is said in Lk 8:2, that is, several women provided assistance to him and to the apostles with their goods. In this sense, it can also be borne in mind that living on almsgiving, as was the choice of Saint Francis for example, always requires that someone be able to do it and therefore somebody who has worked to earn the money to give in almsgiving.
The problem of politics, in its confrontation with spirituality, is that it is easily presented as a context on which the most brutal human instincts such as competition, the law of the strongest, the tendency to conquer more and more space, have an easy game. Even democracy can be considered a flawed form of politics because, by entrusting power to the people, it entrusts it to the mass, making sure that the massified and massifying ways of thinking prevail against the search for more critical, intellectual, in-depth horizons.
Taking this into account, it can be deduced that the spiritual person has a lot to say to the world, especially in keeping up the awareness that any type of politics should be considered a means and not the purpose; the purpose must be sought and deserves to be sought, so that the criteria with which to choose and manage the means derive from it. In this context, an important sign is the gesture of Jesus who, when asked about the woman caught in adultery, began to write on the ground (Jn 8:3-9), as to say that, before tackling that question, one had to reflect about something else, that is, the reference horizon, compared to which that question represented only a means.
However, the spiritual person is not limited only to indicating the highest horizons which constitute the purpose; she also demonstrates her spirituality through her involvement in concrete political issues, where making mistakes is not a risk, but a certainty, since there are no perfect and immaculate political paths. In this context, the spiritual person is one who is not afraid of making mistakes, is not afraid of admitting it, but instead takes charge of it: what matters is walking collectively for the common good, that needs to be identified continuously through common research.
Additional notes
Ideology is what traditionally has distinguished political parties from each other. Each party used to have a system of thought, a specific, fairly precise, outlined organization of its ideas. Then there has been the fall of ideologies. It is as if all ways of thinking discovered that they could be criticized and therefore could enter into contradiction, so that every party could no longer be based on a system of thought, because this system, in any way whatsoever, could be criticized in any way. The problem is that, with the fall of ideologies, a distrust in thinking has crept in, as if reflecting, thinking, were just activities that create confusion, cheating, contradiction, and therefore something just illusory. Actually, what has fallen is just a way of thinking, a way of managing ideas, but, since that was the most widespread way, the way we had absorbed for thousands of years, then this was identified as the end of thinking: there is no point in thinking, because, anyway, whatever we think can be contradicted by an opposite thought.
In this context, it has happened that political parties, which often like to be called in different ways, but can still be traced back to what the parties were in the past, being no longer distinguished from each other by a system of thought, identified themselves on the basis of practical choices. In this context people choose different parties not because each one has a specific ideal, advocates certain horizons to achieve, but because it has made certain choices on certain problems and therefore certain people agree with those choices.
The problem is that people no longer investigate what way of thinking is behind those choices, or, if there is one, people go by instinct, not by a real in-depth and critical reflection. This is obviously a problem, because this way people lose sight of the final purposes, that is, people make choices, but it is no longer clear what the ultimate end is, it gets reduced to something vague, such as well-being, some common good; but what is this common good, and on what criteria is it based? In this context, pragmatism – pragmatism means basing yourself on the concrete, going directly to the practical, without getting lost in many reflections – becomes a mistake, because it thinks it can act without reflection.
Actually we cannot act without our brain, our brain always thinks. Thinking that we can live without reflection means passively undergoing the ideas we carry in our minds, without subjecting them to criticism, revision, examination. We anyway have got ideas in our minds, it’s a matter of choosing whether we want to manage them critically, by reflecting on them, examining them, examining them in depth, or by saying “Okay, let’s get practical, let’s choose what the majority thinks is best”. But, if the majority is made by people who don’t reflect, how can we think that this majority is really choosing something that is good, that is the best? However, this is the situation we find ourselves in today. I think it’s not a good promising situation, at least until we find ways to discover that ideas can be managed, we can think, we can reflect, it’s just a matter of reconciling ourselves with the past, with the way of thinking practiced in the past, which has fallen together with ideologies, and finding ways of thinking more suited to the whole history that has been built. Doing this needs work, not only of reflection, but also of real experience that has to be cultivated, and in this context, undoubtedly, spirituality has a great contribution to make.
Leave A Comment