by Giano Rocca
Chapter 19:
Sciences: in the reality structural historical and for the overcoming this reality
The scientism was defined: a utopian ideology in so far as it sought, among other things, to “make rational” the political and social reality, applying them the scientific methodology (as it was imagined during that time). This ideology had considered the rational essence, with respect to the human nature, of structural reality historic. It was based on the absence of knowledge and awareness of the essence of the social reality in act. Roberto Sabatino Lopez stated, instead, that the scientism was not only a religion of science, but above all a conception of science according to which it would be possible to adopt the scientific method for every aspect of knowledge of reality (1). The latter meaning of scientism, is worthy of being preserved and enhanced, although the historian scientism has qualified for the misconceptions of the historical reality, described above .
Piotr Kropotkin stated that “the Romantic” have proclaimed the “failure of science” (2) since it had not had successful (yet) to resolve the human and social problem. Essential task of science is, therefore, that of solve the problem the social and the problem human. Michel Foucoult has had intuitions on the possibility of overcoming the structural reality of history.
There is a connection between cognitive level, achieved thanks to the development of the sciences, and the possibility of overcoming the structural reality historic, confirming that there is a social progress or of the human sociality, next to the structural evolution historical (3). The current level of technical and scientific development amplifies the conscience of the inadequacy of the reality structural statual for human beings. Then, sets the conditions for its overcoming. The “Scientists”, recognize, in agreement, the hiatus between cognitive level in the field of physics and level of the knowledge in the field of social and human sciences as well as between the development technical-scientific, and the social reality. In the latter field there is, still, irresponsibility and unpredictability. The club of Rome of Aurelio Peccei had recognized, in the eighties, the need for a “leap of quality”, namely accomplish a “new human revolution” that makes the human beings able to be responsible for their own destiny (4). Some thinkers recognize as the level reached by the natural sciences involve, for the society structural historical, a stress which express the requirement of his overcoming, since it requires “advanced forms of democracy” (5). If science, in its progress, proposes gradual approximations to the truth, in a constant movement of approximation thereto, there is a stadium, in which the scientific knowledge allows to have a sufficient knowledge of the human condition, such as to put humanity able to mutate the same human condition, according to own needs and desires. The scientific knowledge of reality historical structural will determine the possibility of overcoming this reality, with the creation of a social reality actually consonant with human nature. The science is accused of chasing the Faustian myth of the creation of the new man. In fact, the new man exists at least by when there are conceptions teleological, acquired by the religions, which denounce the dissatisfaction of the human being to the conditions in which it is located. Science, indeed, it is able, only, transform the teleological myth of religions in reality, which is to allow the satisfaction of a need, at long heard, and the satisfaction of which is ever more urgent and whose failure to meet, by now, puts in danger the same survival of the our species.
Norberto Bobbio stated that science and its development are: fundamental rationality, namely “enlightenment irreversible” (6). The science, in its development, tends to reduce the area of irrational knowledge, extending, at the same time, the area of the rational knowledge. This is what happened in the field of medicine, of the astronomy and of the physics. So can occur in the field of social and human sciences.
The human knowledge, that is expressed, mainly, in the whole of science, is not only the instrument of the achievement of human purposes, but is element of those purposes, being (the knowledge) a constitutive element of happiness. When this body of knowledge is threatened in its survival, both locally that in a general sense, deserves to be defended, not so much for itself because, corresponding to the purpose of humanity, will survive anyway, until will survive the species, but because its own patrimony of every individual, of which constitutes the foundation of own expression of being.
The need for absolute truth (which is expressed in science) is antithetical to the absolutization of knowledge (which is expressed in religions), according to the distinction that runs between the scientific spirit and the religious spirit.
Bruno Rizzi foresaw as the institutions own of the universe structural statual, at least in its merchant steps, they are not opposed to scientific progress in the field of mathematical and naturalistic, while in the social field, or structural, the opposition to a real progress is clear in every historical phase, albeit with a control perhaps less suffocating, where there are types of government more democratic (7). If the sciences mathematical-physical had reached soon the scientificity, because of to be stranger of their object from structural reality, on the contrary, the humanities and social sciences, since they have a more direct relationship with the structural reality, in which he lives the researcher, need to work hard to reach a degree of scientificity worthy of this name. In their turn the human sciences can be split into two separate fields, depending on their object: from one side the sciences directly related to structural reality and to the knowledge of this reality; on the other hand the humanities real, intended as the sciences of the human being, as such: philosophy, psychology and the neurosciences. The firsts cannot achieve a degree of scientificity acceptable: if those who study has interests connected, in some way, with the structural reality, both of that contemporary, than of what is about to be realized or realizable in perspective. The seconds, which in its intentions and declarations of those who study them, should possess only a scientific approach with respect to the human being “natural”, are in fact the most affected by structural determination, because the statual culture, in act or dominant, has great interest to become an instrument of continuity, and obtains its purpose, replacing the object declared with the real object: where, the latter, is the essence of man structural or historical, distinct and distant from the natural human being. In this way the reality structural statual becomes the real object of these sciences, or the criterion of their scientificity (of the this is example the philosophy, which constitutes the basis of the dominant culture of a given statual system, while it should be the study scientific of the human essence and of its sociality). The interference of the structural culture with the physical-mathematical sciences it occurred, especially, when it was aimed at the achievement of the knowledge of the how, through the knowledge of why. Now, if, the prevailing scientific method, in the search of the knowledge, will become the search of why, through knowledge of how, since the interference of structural culture it has faded, although once again, threaten to become heavy, when the science moves closer to the goal of responding to a few because, threatening to subvert the religious culture, or irrational, wich it is specific of the structures statual. The so-called “human sciences” are impregnated with ideologies, if they are not themselves mere ideologies. This is, because these pseudo-sciences are functional to the conservation of the statual structure that a given phase, while they can be quite laughable, or absurd, in the other statual phase.
In the reality structural historical there is a barrier against the knowability, definable as: barrier to preserve the unknowability, in the field of human and social knowledge. In fact, at to the human and social sciences is not allowed to grow beyond a certain limit. Only with the demolition of the wall of the unknowability of the human and social sciences, humans will fully adhere to the scientific spirit, and this will allow: on the one hand, of achieve the knowledge essential to overcoming the structural reality historic; on the other hand, of encourage every individual at give an autonomous and own, contribution, to the
further advancement of knowledge.
Science, entering the field of metaphysics, occupies the space reserved at the religions and at the ideologies, providing the nswers that were previously reserved at the latters. In this way the science you would instrument of the achievement of beatitude, as prided themselves on being the religions and ideologies.
Unlike of the religions and of the ideologies, science does not provide answers that knows no and its statements (hypothesis, theories and scientific laws) are always verifiable. It is not exclusive, because his answers are always questionable and it is always possible to doubt of them, and precisely in such uncertainties, is its strength, and the means for progressing. While for religions and ideologies, the knowledge provided is always in function of its own success and consolidation, knowledge provided by science she puts herself constantly in this debate and, for this, progresses and increases the authentic human knowledge. If the priests of all religions and ideologies, are definable as prostitutes of the Spirit, the “Scientists” are the gravediggers of existing science and perform their function by creating new knowledge, namely a new spirit. They bury the dead spirit, to feed the new spirit. Are the nurses of the spiritual growth, the which last, is the scale for the attainment of the absolute. The priests of the religions and ideologies subtract vitality and embalm the spirit, for the their own advantage. They are some authentic prostitutes of the Spirit. The science and natural reality are between them in the ratio of subject to object. The science is the knower: the natural reality or cosmic. We can say that science is the daughter of the cosmic nature, since the latter, responding to principles or mechanisms initially unknown to the human being, has enabled the latter to grow in knowledge. Now the science is becoming adult. If happen the obtaining a sufficient knowledge of the reality of the human situation can be said to be pregnant and next to procreate. Daughter of science will be the new reality of the human condition. This new reality, fully responding to the needs of human sociality, will be the daughter of science. The human being, authentic producer of the science, will be the father of the new human reality, the latter, therefore, will be the daughter of the human being.
Science of society is the study of the inevitability, finalized to the realization of what is optional, namely, it will be the result of the willingness authentically human and, therefore, natural. The human will is the quintessence, or substance, of what is optional, achievable through the scientific knowledge of reality social and human.
The control of this reality, on the part of human beings, will be achievable, only, in light of the achievement of the required level of knowledge, and awareness, of the essence of this historical reality and of the ways for fully realize the sociality natural of human beings, without coming into conflict with the full satisfaction of the authentic needs of the individuals. This control will be achieved when you will found the synthesis or convergence of the needs intrinsic, and of the social needs, of individuls, by providing a form of society that allows the satisfaction of both types of needs, since a truly humane society is together the purpose: both of the implementation of full individualization, as of the realization of the full sociality. The individual is generated from the sociality of the same individual, and not by the society, which is always generated, until now unconsciously, by individuals, and reflects the them degree of knowledge and conscience. The creation of economic science and, in general, of the sciences of structural reality, which allow to give account of the evolution of the same reality structural statual, will serve as a de-legitimization, moral and legal, of the same reality. The result will be the gradual disintegration of the societies statual. We must, then, that at the constitution of the sciences of the reality structural statual, immediately follow the creation of the science of the human being and of his sociality, in order to create an ideal alternative, before that effective, to society in act. The social scientists, they will become midwives of a new social reality, with the absence of structures.
The science of social reality and human is definable as: the authentic interpretation of reality, which delimits and cancel the arbitrary interpretations or illegitimate, as affirmed by Umberto Eco in the work: “The limits of interpretation” (8). It appears necessary to create a new definition of science or new epistemological paradigm, especially for the field of social and human sciences. The current scientific theories, regardless of the degree of their formalization (generally considered index of scientificity) often, are nothing more than justifications, more or less fanciful, of reality structural ongoing. Science can be defined knowledge: the nature or aspects of reality, susceptible to introduce modifications in the manifestations of nature or of that same reality analyzed. It is definable, in this way, scientific law, that theory, sufficiently proven, that allows the creation of a technique capable of modifying some manifestations of reality, object of the same scientific inquiry. Thus, as the physical laws make it possible, to modify the manifestations of the physical entities studied: the optical allows you to create light rays of very different between them, physics allows you to modify the manifestations of the individual atoms and of create new of ones, the astronomy, allowing new visions of the stars, allows you to create a new cosmology, namely to change the manifestation of the human being in the cosmos; similarly, the scientific laws relating to the human sciences and social will modify the manifestation of the human being and the essence of his society. Scientific Theories will allow a different perception of the human being and of society, but they will assume the status of scientific law only where will actually to allow the birth of techniques capable of modifying the manifestation of the human being and the essence of his society; the which society will be able to make possible the full manifestation of his sociality. The verification of scientific hypotheses, through the observation of the occurrence of forecasts, deduced from the scientific hypotheses formulated, it will allow the their definition as: scientific theories, which could be called scientific laws if will result in techniques that use those scientific theories, to modify the manifestation of human beings in the cosmos.
Morgan, while he was theorizing a fundamental influence of scientific and technical progress on the historical evolution, however had recognized as “the inventions and the discoveries” are between them in a progressive report, while institutions “they develop themselves one on another”, namely, they not constitute a real progress since, he said, they are all gradually developed from a few primary germs “of thought”, having some components in common. They respond, namely, to a single logic and evolve with its own logic, extraneous to the willingness, to conscience and to the real human progress. The ideologies and structural culture aim at to suggest the science as a direct fruits of the structures, species of the structures statual. In reality, the science progresses in an autonomous manner, with respect to the structural evolution. The science and knowledge in general, precede the structural evolution. Science, the only positive fact generated by human evolution, is outside by the structural reality, while being conditioned, in its progress, from the structural evolution.
Ralph Linton had recognized that “the technology”, and the rest of culture (9), are not rigidly interconnected and itself modify in a virtually autonomous way. You can consider culture as the ideal projection or complex of ideality of the historical structures. You may also say that science is not part of the culture, being a cognitive world stand-alone (10). Karl R. Popper stated that criticism is permitted only there where there is an real detachment between culture and the knowledge (11). Then: scientific progress you can have only where knowledge is not confused with the dominant ideology, which happens, essentially, in the feudal phases.
Roger Bacon had recognized that the logic of structural reality intervenes in scientific research, since it interacts with the ratiocination and the experience. Had recognized as the philosophy is fully subject to structural logic (12). The science is conditioned by the prevailing ideologies of a given historical period. The “Scientists” hardly
manage to free themselves from the prevailing ideologies in their historical era and, therefore, they remain conditioned, by distorting so, in a more or less marked extent, research. Scientific progress is, thereby, severely affected by the evolution of the universe structural statual.
In the feudal phases of the universe structural statual, the science is, almost completely, blocked by the dominant ideology and, indeed, in the moment of maximum closure, science regresses in many sectors, while, in the time of the transition to phase feudal, the science develops itself in the field of the war or in areas that promise to enable an increase in the power of the dominant caste. In the merchant phases research develops mainly in sectors which guarantee a greater profit (and therefore a greater economic development). Thus: in the early 40s of the twentieth century there was a strong boost to research in the field of atomic physics, connected to the development of the atomic bomb, in the latter part of the 40s and in the 50s there had been, instead, a strong impetus to the development of science, of the technique and technology, which allowed the strong productive development “of the postwar”, in the sixties was the race for the conquest of space, connected to the purposes of war and/or strategic prestige, in the seventies it tended to give impetus to the search for new sources of energy, in connection with the “oil crisis”: this as an basic stimulus, although science tends to be left relatively free in the merchant phases, at least, if it does not clash openly with the ethical paradigms imposed by religious ideologies. Thus, for example, in the years zero of the XXI century there was a tendency to curb or impede strongly the research in the field of embryonic stem cells, and this for the influence of faith “Christian”, and of the what “catholic”, in particular. The science is conditioned, in its progress and in the choice of the direction in which to develop itself, as a matter of priority, by the evolutionary moment, in act. of the universe structural statual.
The technique can interact with the organization of work, although it is mainly the social system in place at influence, primarily, on the organization of work. Bloch had recognized as is not the technical development that determines the social changes, but how are these latter to act on the development of technical-scientific, which, in turn, can co-determine the social mutations such as, for example, it happened with the overcoming of slavery (13).
Eric Hobsbawn spoke of “technological revolution” for to point out the evolution technical-productive that occurred from 1950 to the 1980s (14). He stated that the “sexual revolution” of the sixties and seventies has been favored by the “technological revolution”. This is certainly true if you think, for example, at to the progress made in the field of chemical and biological (15).
J. J. Rousseau had recognized the influence of social structures, over the type of activity carried out and on the scientific development, avoiding of putting the two facts, in mechanical relationship between of them (16). Eugenio Garin foresaw as there was a link between “the revolutions: mercantile, scientific and industrial” (17) of the XVII century. In the seventeenth century she occurred, in fact, the transition to the capitalist system competitive, favored by the scientific revolution in act, which determined, in turn, the industrial revolution. With the consolidation of the capitalist system competitive was realized, in fact, the full resurgence of “rationalism”, favoring, fully, the scientific development. If it is incorrect the position of the anthropology and of the other “sciences” social, in classify the societies depending on the type of existing production (and this is demonstrated by the fact that coexist, in a given type of society, productions that they are, among themselves, quite different), such as the breeding nomadic and agriculture sedentary at the Kyrgyz Republic; however, dates forms of production, they favor, or induce, the development of data levels of socio-cultural integration (or structural universes historical), or of certain social systems. Thus, the industry has allowed the development of the capitalist systems, rather than of the slavery systems, while agriculture is more in keeping with the slavery systems and the feudal serfdom (18). Maurice Godelier, citing the anthropological problem raised by the “Formalists”, about the level of “cheapness” of economic action in the societies pre-statual and in the phases feudal, had recognized as the proper values of the structures pre-statual they inhibit the constant flow of the innovations and, therefore, they tend to limit the technical development – productive, reachable in these forms of society. This phenomenon is also present in the feudal phases, as well as in the societies that they live in a mercantile phase, but with elements or tendencies toward a feudal stage, or are in the transition between the two phases statual (19). The historians academics testify of a certain scientific progress, which would have occurred during the persistence of a feudal phase, in particular where there is the centralized variant of the aforementioned feudal phase. In the feudal phases the scientific progress is manifested essentially in the field of agriculture and of military technology, while in other fields there is, at most, the preservation of scientific knowledge previously acquired (20). In the feudal systems centralized, or partially centralized, of the “Arab empire” and “Byzantine Empire”, the science is regressed, but there have been some advances in science, operated by the Arabs, and such progress, has been made known to the West, in the course of the XII century (21). In the Empire “Byzantine”, of the X century, there he devoted himself to conservation and transmission of science and knowledge (22). This is a feature, in fact, of the feudal phases centralized or partially centralized. All scientific discoveries anterior to the IX century were, however, only used when he began the transition to phase mercantile (23). Ernst Bloch showed, talking about the case of the water-mill, as with the feudal phase “medieval” there has been a stasis technological-scientific.There was, in fact, the lack of generalization of water-mill until the XII century (24). At demonstration of the, frequent clear, regression (25) that occurs, especially in the use of the technique, in feudal phases, it notes the return of water-mill with horizontal blades. In the"U.R.S.S." of the seventies, there was an incipient economic decadence, not only in relation to the West, where it was in act the mercantile phase, but also in relation to the previous situation of the Russia itself “czarist”. This decline was highlighted by the non-operation of the fundamental services, especially health sectors (26), with progressive forfeiture of medical therapies, also with the methodological progress scientific, induced by the West (27). The stay in hospital was now only a symptom of willingness to total control on the individual and not the provision of intensive care (28). The technology of the mini and micro - computer, which was developed, in the West, since the eighties of the twentieth century, allowing access to the archives of private and public data, before the emergence of “internet”, has determined the crisis and he paved the way for the transition from the feudal phase to the phase mercantile of the historical cycle “post-modern”, in the Eastern Europe. In fact, the countries who were in the neo-feudal phase, have rushed to prohibit the new technology in development, prohibition that delayed slightly the “social revolution”, that broke out, however, at the end of the eighties. The industrial revolution and technological of the 80s, was not the direct cause of the revolutions in the sense mercantile, of the period 1989 - 1993. In fact, the effects productive of the technological revolution is witnessed in the West, only at the end of the eighties, and in the Eastern Europe, who was in a feudal stage, the practical effect of the technological revolution there was not still in 1993. Eric Hobsbawm had recognized, in fact, as the society “Soviet” had inhibited the “technological revolution” and industrial (29).
Morgan had recognized as ways of subsistence, namely, the types and forms of human activity will be developed through a technique, only indirectly connected with “inventions and the discoveries”, namely, with the development of technical-scientific truly appropriate (30).
The historians academics have established a relationship between technical development-cognitive and historical evolution, and this, in th
e erroneous conviction of an identity between scientific-technical progress and historical evolution. Thus, they speak of: “Stone Age”, “age of bronze” and “age of the iron”, to describe the first moments of the history of the structural reality (Pre- and Early History). They distinguished in : "Evo ancient", "Middle Ages", "modern age" and "contemporary age" (and, for some, the “post-modern age”), to indicate the various moments of the evolution of the literal history, namely, the various moments, in time, of what we have defined as: the universe structural statual. This periodization, both for the history of the universes structural pre-statual (not identifiable with the "Age pre-literal"), both for the history of the universe structural statual (much more extended, temporally, of what they consider the historians academics) is totally erroneous and misleading.
Marx was aware of the fact that, with the end of the Roman Empire, there has been a decline or involution technical-scientific. This fact, cannot be reconciled with the vision of the history that he wanted to accredit, namely the vision of a continuous progress, and therefore, with the inseparable relationship, that he wanted to accredit, between scientific-technical progress and historical progress (31). Marx and Engels were forced to theorising, entirely instrumentally, as the “Disappearance of a people from trade” makes inevitable the “disappearance” of scientific and technical progress, where it had been previously reached; being well aware the consequences of the feudal phases on scientific and technical progress, although, so of all instrumental, they have held responsible of a such an event, the wars and the raids “of peoples barbarians” (32).
The theory “Marxist”, according to which: the concentration of industries is dependent on the degree of technical and scientific developments, is rebutted by the same conclusions of Marx and Engels, of the trends toward concentration, which occurred already at the time of the guilds, that are the features of the systems of the Lordships and systems bourgeois, concentrations that have occurred “despite the regulations of the guilds”.
Marx and Engels wondered, perplexed, how it can be possible to a new feudal phase, in the “modern age”, given the dimensions in the world market. The answer was, clearly, in mind of “Lenin”, since he knew well “What to do”, about this (and the “Gulags”, he founded, are a glaring example). By imposing such inhuman, forcings, he was able, in fact, to create a new feudal phase, which it was consolidated in a real centralized feudal system.
Morgan had stated that the progression of human knowledges takes place, generally, in geometric shape. In fact, every single advancement of knowledge becomes, in turn, an essential factor of further acquisitions of knowledges. It follows that while progress was slower at the beginning, it grew up its speed to the passing of time, while the relative importance of the primitive acquisitions, or more ancients, is, proportionally, greater than the subsequent ones.
Walt W. Rostow had stressed the distinction between discovery and innovation (33), where: the first is the work of the “Scientists” and the second for applies this discovery, in order to change the conditions of the market. J. A. Shumpeter showed as the second it is bound to prevail, where is a greater development. Shaun Usher had highlighted as well as the inventive activity requires development conditions, and results in the same development, in turn (34) and, therefore, the invention is not foreign to entrepreneurial activity, and not completely separable way from this. This reappointment as the inventions, the discoveries and the scientific progress, are related to merchant phases. Kindleberger, in fact, showed how the “state intervention in the economy” does not create, nor can create, entrepreneurial capacities (35), determining factor of an actual growth in production or an development. The entrepreneurial ability is the fruit of the resourcefulness and of the freedom of initiative, feature of the merchant phases, maximized in capitalist systems competitive and in their inherent “laissez-faire”. Shaun Usher had distinguished between primary inventions (namely: not addressed directly to the commercial application), those secondaries (those that are open to the application) and those tertiary (those applied to specific sectors) (36).
Some economists say that new products tend to essentially increase demand (37). In reality there are two possible types of new products: those aimed at increasing demand, responding better to the satisfaction of the needs, and those aimed at improving qualitatively and quantitatively the domain of the dominant section of society. Therefore, the most important distinction is not between technologies to create new goods or to produce, in a new way, goods already tested, but between technology that fits in the best way to meet the general needs of the individuals (either by changing how to produce, that creating new goods) and technologies aimed at increasing the dominance of the dominant section of the society, of which they are an example both the technology of the pyramids and like that military.
The science tends to make “scientific”, or rational, making rational the report of production, and in the attempt to inherent exceed the irrationality inherent in work, in an attempt to allow to exceed the same job, considered as irrational occupation of the human being.
The ideologies religious and political, as the “Christianity” and the “Marxism”, recognize that a given social reality can become surmontable: namely, when it has ceased to give its fruits. The statual structural reality, in fact, becomes surmountable, when there is awareness of its essence and of the evolutionary dynamics and if you perceive his limits: in order to the satisfaction of human needs. Human progress is determined by the completeness and the mode of satisfaction of needs. If you find a type of society that meets most human needs, realizes a genuine progress, conscious and voluntary.
Some philosophers, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, rhave ecognizing how the language reflects the historical culture, namely the culture of structural reality, they say that there exists the need to create a stranger language to the schemes of structural cultures. Say there is a big gap between real and possible, as the gap between the history of structural reality and the normal society, or consonant, at the nature of human beings. It can be said that the language is part of the science (or its instrument) and, at the same time, part of culture, namely of the structural reality historic (38). Popper had reported as the “Stoic philosophers” were likely to consider the language as belonging to all three worlds: the physical world (physical actions and symbolisms), the structural world and subjective (subjective: for the character and behavioral implications), scientific world, or cognitive, (because it contains, or it can enable, the transmission of the information) (39).
Popper had stated as, upper functions of human language are: the descriptive, and the argumentative (40), instead of the communicative and of the expressive. In reality, the faculties: communicative and expressive are present to a lesser extent also in other animal species, and only with the emergence of the Faculty descriptive and moot or critical, the communication, or expression, takes a higher value, and such as to make the human being capable of creating social structures more advanced with respect to the structures that we have in common with species pre-human (as, for example, is more progressed: the universe structural statual).
From a search of two American scholars emerges as both a common place the assertion that the word and the languages spoken are the unique means of communication, or the only possible languages. In fact, emerges as the languages of the deaf are also rich and complexes, as well as completely autonomous by languages spoken. Such languages involve, more intensively, the expressions or emotions visual externals. This confirms how verbal communication is not the only type of communication possible and, then, demonstrates how the language of animals of other species may be sufficiently complete to enable the realisation of structural universes of type pre-statual. This study shows, furthermore, as there is no a direct relationship, or bi-unique, among intellectual development and communicative capacity or richness of language, the latter being connected to the degree of sociality or to the type of society in which he lives the subject (41): pre-stru
ctural, structural or post-structural.
Walter Benjamin had predicted the need of overcoming the structural reality statual and had believed it was necessary to create a language capable of achieve a full coincidence “between practice and word” (42). The philosophy of language feels the need of a greater correspondence between: language. terminology and reality. A qualitative leap of social sciences would allow a precise biunique correspondence between word and its meaning, namely the specific aspect of the real that, with the word, you want to allow to understand, namely: shape, quality, causes, effects and the purposes.
Communication through the internet, and the telematics in general, they determine the dawning of a new language, tendentially useful to the development of human communication (43).
In the reality historical structural, the language is used, essentially, for the purpose of conquest or of conservation of the power, namely, of the predominance on third parties, or for realize its own economic pre-eminence.The language is almost never used, exclusively, for realizing a authentic communication, namely, to meet the need of sociality of the individuals. The realization of the equity in the social and economic field will allow you to use the language solely in order to realize the fullness of the satisfaction of the need of sociality of individuals.
