From my humble point of view (perhaps a bit naive and inexperienced) I believe (I hope not to exaggerate) that the main cause of the "why of the quality of life of us human beings", lies in the inadequate management of everything that circumscribes the term Social Sciences (Anthropology, History, Economics, Psychology, Sociology, Politology, Pedagogy, etc.) and the, apparently, NOT understood historical responsibility of social scientists to improve this why.
This problem (why the low quality of life of the human being and therefore, the unhealthy search for our self-extinction) that arose with the very birth of these sciences (19th century, descendants of Galilean science with roots that manage to reach more beyond Aristotle, Pythagoras and Plato) and that as soon as it took its first steps, almost instantly, it went global. A problem that we cannot indisputably attribute to Natural Sciences (Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Geology, Chemistry), definitively and categorically its authorship is from the Social Sciences.
Wanting to be a little more precise, we find that the first thoughts that orbited around what we now call Social Sciences go back to the 7th and 6th centuries BC. Yes, with Buddha and Mahavira in India and Zaratrusta (Zoroaster) in Iran, who in a very interesting way, forged the bases of the western gnostic currents (philosophical-religious currents that managed to camouflage themselves in Christianity), from Neoplatonism, alchemy, the Renaissance cabal and modern scientism.
Obviously from yesteryear until now, several centuries of study and adaptation have passed, in simple words, we have gone through a cognitive evolution in order to improve the quality of life of us hominids self-called homo sapiens (sadly converted to homo consumens).
Well, as a curious note, and as the fossil remains attest, we are practically the same now as approximately 25 thousand years ago, what has changed dramatically is our world, the perspective with which we linked ourselves to our environment.
Tal como lo señala Desmond Morris en su controversial «El Mono Desnudo – un estudio del animal humano»: «Y ahí tenemos a nuestro Mono Desnudo, vertical, cazador, fabricante de armas, territorial, neoténico, cerebral, primate por linaje y carnívoro por adopción, dispuesto a conquistar el mundo. Pero es un producto novísimo y experimental, y, con frecuencia, los modelos nuevos presentan imperfecciones. Sus principales agobios derivarán del hecho de que sus progresos culturales rebasarán a todos los progresos genéticos. Sus genes quedarán rezagados, y tendremos que recordar constantemente que, a pesar de todos sus éxitos en la adaptación al medio, sigue siendo, en el fondo, un mono desnudo”.
On the other hand, Professor José Francisco Jiménez Castillo, in his considerations on the epistemology seminar and in relation to some of the proposals of Professor Zemelman (magazine FACES of the University of Carabobo), tells us: «We are, then, faced with a dualism without unparalleled in history: A man enrolled in a society with a high level of comfort, development and scientific knowledge never seen before himself trying to solve equally macromolecular problems that already threaten his survival: pollution, atomic war, depletion of renewable natural resources as well as an exaggerated abyss in the concentration and distribution of wealth, just to mention some of recent invoice. Added to this is the insufficiency of the sciences to try to explain to him that,As a result of his very work in history, he is a producer and a product, therefore, the maximum responsibility for what is happening now. »
Interesting the contradiction pointed out by Professor José Francisco and perhaps Professor José María Mardones in his work "Philosophy of Human and Social Sciences" somewhat clarifies the picture by pointing out: "Modern science, Galilean, has not warned that it is a daughter socio-economic conditions and is closely linked with industrial development. It privileges a dimension of reason: the one that attends to the search for the means to achieve certain objectives. But those objectives or ends are not questioned, they are ethically or «decisionistically» set by those who control and pay for the services of science. The ratio is reduced, thus to instrumental reason. And its clearest expression, positivist science, works, with the prestige of its technological successes and its rationalization in the theory of science,as an ideology legitimizing such a one-dimensionalization of reason. "
And he continues to tell us “… it is not possible to attend to the logic of science, to the conceptual functioning, and to dispense with the socio-political-economic context where such science is based. Existential and social factors, as the sociology of knowledge and the history of science know, penetrate even the very structure of knowledge. It is not, therefore, trivial for the content of science to attend to the social environment that surrounds it and makes it possible. Here, too, epistemological problems are at stake. Whoever forgets this environment, which Adorno and Horkheimer call social totality, is unaware, in addition to the social functions exercised by his theorizing, of the true objectivity of the phenomena he analyzes. ”
I think that with the intervention of Professors José Francisco and José María in this dialogue, we have a clear picture to understand the "why", mentioned at the beginning of this article, however, I think it is convenient to highlight and emphasize it, due to its level of responsibility, to those who direct the research policies since on them rests the axiological and deontological commitment to guarantee the praxis of scientific-social research.
If they do not fulfill their responsibilities, surely the "why" will fall into the hands of the opportunist, the politician who, with an epistemologically ideological, biased, limited and fragmented vision, but flaunting understanding, experience and knowledge, appeals to his improvised and improvised arsenal. ideas and solutions that, according to their point of view, satisfy and overcome the social problems raised.
The ideas and solutions of this delusional benefactor, since they are not supported by scientific-social research (due to the negligence of those who direct the research policies), are of little value and have little resolutive character so that they can serve to contain the social problem posed. rather they widen it and make it worse.
To illustrate the contribution of the delusional benefactor, I will take as an example the case of a person who claims to have pain in one knee, pain that is present at all times, when walking, when resting, sitting and even lying down. The illustrious benefactor, after analyzing the case, proposes as a solution to apply cold compresses and take an analgesic, muscle relaxant and an anti-inflammatory and voila the pain will disappear. This reminds me of what Brother Cocó said in the humorous program on Radio Rochela "have faith, brother, if you have no faith, have no light."
The solution proposed by the delusional benefactor is interesting, but the serious, real and responsible solution to the ailment is in the hands of a traumatologist and the possible subsequent intervention of a neurosurgeon since the pain reflected in the knee originates from a herniated disc in the spinal column as indicated by the physical examination performed by the traumatologist and as confirmed by the nuclear magnetic resonance image.
Social scientists (sociologists, anthropologists, economists, communicators, pedagogues, political scientists, psychologists, etc.), you know perfectly well that only and only with scientific research can adequate answers be given to the "why" already mentioned. They know that only with the praxis of “scientific” research can we know, in a deeper and more real way, the aspects that affect and establish our quality of life, its causes and its possible repercussions. Only social-scientific research can provide serious and responsible ideas and solutions to improve it, or perhaps you question it?
In short, we homo sapiens, we naked walking monkeys, we society, we count on you who direct research policies, with you social scientists, with special emphasis on political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, pedagogues, economists and communication scientists, so that together we can solve problems that cannot be answered in the exact or natural sciences. We have educational institutions at different levels to study, analyze and engender clear hermeneutical responses to our needs, it is the responsibility of all of us to find the point of intersection between the different disciplines and leave aside the malicious Yoismo, selfishness, greed and the desire for power, let's leave empiricism and improvisation aside,Let us stop being superficial and strengthen our hermeneutic and cognitive capacity in order to provide real solutions. Let us not play at our self-destruction, let us honor our self-proclamation of homo sapiens.
In these moments the words of Santiago Ramón y Cajal (the first Latin to receive the 1906 Nobel Prize in Medicine) come to my memory, who paraphrasing them told us that the spirit of scientific curiosity has been dormant for four long centuries of mental servitude and that duty of teachers is to reveal and guide it.
I apologize if I hurt sensitivities but we, the society, the world, cry out for solutions that do not end up arriving with the quality we deserve: poverty, apathy, corruption, unemployment, population growth, hunger and malnutrition, family disintegration, crime, warming global, surface water quality, war, gender violence, racism, the concentration of power in the hands of a privileged few, drug dependence, obsession with aesthetics, excessive consumerism, immigration, social discrimination, etc., etc..
Social scientists, the future of our society, the future of the world, the future of our species homo sapiens, is in your hands, encouragement that we all count on you.
Please, when you finish reading this succinct and humble article, answer the question asked.
