Zimmer: Chiefs Krasniqi and Blerim Latifi are the same, have no difference

The philosopher Sead Zimmer has reacted to a writing of philosophy, former adviser to Hashim Thaci, now Kadri Wessel's adviser, with the title “Bosnianisation”.

Zimer, in his Facebook writing, says he sees no difference in the level of epistemic and cognitive approach between Blerim Latifi and other dogmatic theologians, such as Shefqet Krasniqi.

According to Zimer, both are two sides of the same coin and that they exist because of each other, writes Periscope.

For Zimer, Blerim Latifi is nothing more than a narrow mind.

Read below Zimer's full reaction:

Between Religious and National Pliism

I see no difference at the level of epistemic/cognitive approach between Blerim Latifi and other dogmatic theologians, such as Shefqet Krasniqi, for example. There are two sides of the same coin, and they only exist because of each other. They have two seemingly and conflicting speeches, but in essence and shape they are the same. Blerim Latifi is Shefqet Krasniqi.

Before long, I read a theologian writing on that old dogmatic avaz where being a Muslim defined it so narrow that it was impossible to remain both Muslim and thinker of the 21st century. The categories through which the Muslim being was defined were so narrow that even if you wanted to remain Muslim they would not accept you. Those categories that were probably appropriate in the early ages of Islam but not today, though they were even as arbitrary as they are today, since they did not include the most ingenious heads of Islam.

The other side of this coin is nationalist dogmatism, which through a narrow, arbitrary and historical definition of the Albanian being excludes an entire people from Albanian identity. Now when you face definitions like this, you need to be right away if you're not completely stupid to realize that these definitions are biased; they're malicious and they're bullshitting, they're trying to put them in the box, and they close dynamic identities forever. It is also an attempt to create new Orthodoxes and monopolise the right to define religious and national affiliations. It is a war for symbolic power.

Now it's not that I'm very worried about individuals with this narrow-mindedness when they get my right to define identities. No. I personally don't care about any identities. What worries me is how Orthodox rule always creates those who operate with dogmatic and ahistoric categories. This is because such categories are easily manipulated by political powers and therefore determine the fate of entire peoples. I don't mind classification as such, but the idiocy of those who do these categories, and I feel that they, not the rest of us, see more shades, win battles for the right of our affiliations on institutional levels.