FATALISM

ON-HUMAN

Answering the question raised by the teacher who asked:

Was there today any ideology capable of causing changes that would lead people to a better future?


Throughout human history we saw various forms of government, all with the promise of a better life for their citizens. Generation after generation we see that the errors are repeated, or if renewed, is rarely forgotten them. Personal interests always startle the public and community interests. We want justice, equality and fraternity, but we have committed injustice, we want to be different and we want others to agree with us. The big problem I see in humanity is not ideological in nature, we always have good ideas to improve the world, however, all our proposals fail because of our human nature, malicious, greedy, selfish, tricky, hedonistic, weak, perverse, and other qualifications for exemption be listed.

Just to recall, the exercise of power systems and forms of governments that have experience in this world are:
anarchism
democracy
authoritarianism
monarchy
theocracy
parliamentarism
republicanism
oligarchy
presidentialism
autocracy
militarism
technocracy


This huge pot called planet Earth where we live, has introduced all kinds of recipes economic, political, religious imaginable to try to establish a kingdom of peace and prosperity on Earth. ALL IN VAIN. We need no more ideologies, enough!!

Frankly, the failure of the human species is inevitable. I see only one solution with superhuman intervention to govern men on earth and change human nature inside. I'm a fatalist because the historical experience leads me to believe that only an intervention paranormal, supernatural, supernormal, super-human can change this system of things.

Back to answering the question of the teacher, I repeat that NO IDEOLOGY MAY IMPROVE LIFE. Humanity needs to create waves of fads and live, now dominated ideologies are on earth, at other times, other ideologies predominate, all in vain.
A summary of my observations is the same as the wise Solomon summarized in a few pages called The Book of Ecclesiastes. The wise chapter by chapter of his book ends with always the same conclusion: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (GO).


REFERENCES:
WikipediaSolomon, Book of Ecclesiastes

SOCRATES

Socrates (469-399 BC) is known by his disciples, Xenophon


and Plato. Born in Athens, received a careful education

his parents: Sophroniscus, sculptor and Fenareti, midwife. His teaching was

oral, wrote nothing. Nevertheless, he was considered one of the men most

sages of his time. Nevertheless, it was not considered wise.

The Pythia the oracle of Delphi, on behalf of Apollo, was quoted by one of

Socrates' relatives that there was a wiser man than he.

Concerned about such an announcement, sought to investigate and examine the meaning

those words and went out to inquire who said they were wise, but nothing

knew. At the end of his investigation, he realized why it was considered

sage: "Just know that I know nothing. " From that moment, he realized he had

one mission: to provoke thought and bring this to others so that

they became aware of its limitations and prejudices, freeing up

of false-



(SOURCE: Metropolitan University of Santos - Course of History)

ABSOLUTISMO POR MAQUIAVEL

Absolutismo, por Maquiavel.





DE QUE MODO SE DEVAM GOVERNAR AS CIDADES

OU PRINCIPADOS QUE, ANTES DE SEREM OCUPADOS,

VIVIAM COM AS SUAS PRÓPRIAS LEIS

(QUOMODO ADMINISTRANDAE SUNT CIVITATES

VEL PRINCIPATUS, QUI ANTEQUAM OCCUPARENTUR,

SUIS LEGIBUS VIVEBANT)

Quando aqueles Estados que se conquistam, como

foi dito, estão habituados a viver com suas próprias

leis e em liberdade, existem três modos de conservá-los:

o primeiro, arruiná-los; o outro, ir habitá-los pessoalmente;

o terceiro, deixá-los viver com suas leis,

arrecadando um tributo e criando em seu interior um

governo de poucos, que se conservam amigos, porque,

sendo esse governo criado por aquele príncipe,

sabe que não pode permanecer sem sua amizade e

seu poder, e há que fazer tudo por conservá-los. Querendo

preservar uma cidade habituada a viver livre,

mais facilmente que por qualquer outro modo se a

conserva por intermédio de seus cidadãos.

Como exemplos, existem os espartanos e os romanos.

Os espartanos conservaram Atenas e Tebas,

nelas criando um governo de poucos; todavia, perderam-

nas. Os romanos, para manterem Cápua, Cartago

e Numância, destruíram-nas e não as perderam;

quiseram conservar a Grécia quase como o fizeram

os espartanos, tornando-a livre e deixando-lhe suas

próprias leis e não o conseguiram: em razão disso,

para conservá-la, foram obrigados a destruir muitas

cidades daquela província.

É que, em verdade, não existe modo seguro para conservar

tais conquistas, senão a destruição. E quem se

torne senhor de uma cidade acostumada a viver livre

e não a destrua, espere ser destruído por ela, porque

a mesma sempre encontra, para apoio de sua rebelião,

o nome da liberdade e o de suas antigas instituições,

jamais esquecidas seja pelo decurso do tempo,

seja por benefícios recebidos. Por quanto se faça e se

proveja, se não se dissolvem ou desagregam os habitantes,

eles não esquecem aquele nome nem aquelas

instituições, e logo, a cada incidente, a eles recorrem

como fez Pisa cem anos após estar submetida aos

florentinos.