El artículo es un pequeño argumento que utiliza el ejemplo del gobierno de Piñera para explicar cuál es la diferencia entre la ciencia y la política.
Despite Mill’s best efforts, man is not a rational animal. In fact, we could draw parallels between the failures of the Chilean government and Edmund Burke’s astringent portrayal of the French National Assembly after the 1789 Revolution. For Burke, the French parliament was filled with lawyers and technocrats “devoid of practical experience” who would turn politics into a set of “theoretical abstractions.” The 18th-century statesman and philosopher reiterated this point in his “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs”:
Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence.
Burke understood that politics is a world filled with indignation and uproar, a universe of shouting, growling, and protesting. Perceived inequalities matter at least as much as actual inequalities, and the fundamental role of the statesman is to master popular perceptions, control their excesses, and temper the disenchantment of the populace with care and “prudence.” No matter how brilliant and needed technocrats may be, they will never fulfil the demands of Burkean prudence.
Lo peor es que esta mentalidad ha hecho que el estadista virtualmente desaparezca. Y la ilusión de que el experto actúa desde una objetividad que al final sólo sirve para imponer una visión de mundo bien específica y, a menudo, dócil a los más ricos (que están más acostumbrados a aprovechar la ciencia para sus fines por las propias necesidades del capital).
Mucho mejor que gobiernen personas ambiciosas, que solamente desean forrarse, y cuyos conocimientos técnicos sean los mismos que los de una patata frita.
Comentarios
Por mucho que explique Piñera siguen siendo las élites las que gobiernan. Errónea.
#2 A esto sumemos que continúan con la constitución pinochetista con pequeñas modificaciones .
El artículo es un pequeño argumento que utiliza el ejemplo del gobierno de Piñera para explicar cuál es la diferencia entre la ciencia y la política.
Despite Mill’s best efforts, man is not a rational animal. In fact, we could draw parallels between the failures of the Chilean government and Edmund Burke’s astringent portrayal of the French National Assembly after the 1789 Revolution. For Burke, the French parliament was filled with lawyers and technocrats “devoid of practical experience” who would turn politics into a set of “theoretical abstractions.” The 18th-century statesman and philosopher reiterated this point in his “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs”:
Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence.
Burke understood that politics is a world filled with indignation and uproar, a universe of shouting, growling, and protesting. Perceived inequalities matter at least as much as actual inequalities, and the fundamental role of the statesman is to master popular perceptions, control their excesses, and temper the disenchantment of the populace with care and “prudence.” No matter how brilliant and needed technocrats may be, they will never fulfil the demands of Burkean prudence.
Lo peor es que esta mentalidad ha hecho que el estadista virtualmente desaparezca. Y la ilusión de que el experto actúa desde una objetividad que al final sólo sirve para imponer una visión de mundo bien específica y, a menudo, dócil a los más ricos (que están más acostumbrados a aprovechar la ciencia para sus fines por las propias necesidades del capital).
#1 Por eso me disgusta como usan el technocrats los anglosajones.
El tencocrata no es lo mismo que el técnico. Todo gobierno moderno tiene un componente técnico. La tecnocracia es una ideología.
Mucho mejor que gobiernen personas ambiciosas, que solamente desean forrarse, y cuyos conocimientos técnicos sean los mismos que los de una patata frita.
Me recuerda una frase de "· el Gatopardo " .: Antes estaban los tigres, pero ahora vienen las hienas ( o algo parecido ).