“Facebook has already replaced Church and synagogue”

Today we develop our lives on screens, where the ultimate meaning takes life in the empty adoption of “as on Facebook, but also at “” of the Instagram, Twitter and similar networks. In this context, the negatives that in the simplest version can be imagined as an impossible opportunity to press the “button do not like” represents not only the possibility to say “jo”, but also the possibility to counter it in such a way that it is possible to reach a more reflective conscience of what we are, think and do.

It was born in 1959 in South Korea, where demands of a technological-related capitalism set among those countries with the highest suicide rates in the world. Byung-Chul Han's doubts about the Internet are not a product of opportunism, not even chance. Educated in Germany, where he learned his language while studying philosophy, literature, and theology at the University of Friedburg in Munich and today is a docent at the University of Arts in Berlin, where he currently lives. To understand his success, you may need to hear how he expresses his finger, critical views of our modernization.

As philosopher Han stands out as an aphrodisiac, that is, like someone who appeals to simple ideas that appear in writing as a coincidence in books that do not exceed more than 150 pages. This is the first paradox of Byung-Chul Han and his merit. Facing a present that almost doesn't tolerate the format of time that allows us <x0-term experience” and a network (web) that privileged the environments that catch us in the common “fer” are some of the topics of his work. Han has taken in his genius an interest in the constant danger of spreading thousands of readers.

The point of Byung-Chul Han's opinion is negative. What negative is this about? This question needs to be analyzed more thoroughly. Basically monitoring a culture on a planetary scale, whose major horizons are economic, political, social and sexual designed by Internet power, what Han actually claims is: today we develop our lives on screens, where the ultimate meaning takes life in the empty adoption of “ ” as on Facebook, but also at “ “) the Instagram, Twitter, and similar networks. In this context, the negatives that in the simplest version can be imagined as an impossible opportunity to press the “button do not like” represents not only the possibility to say “jo”, but also the possibility to counter it in such a way that it is possible to reach a more reflective conscience of what we are, think and do.

Shouldn't we be able to face “I don't like” to understand what actually “na likes”? In his way, Byung-Chul Han repeats in the digital era of the century XIE what German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel confirmed in 20th century It's the spirit that knows negativity in the other. “Where pure positiveism prevails, excessive optimism, there is no soul,”- writes Han in “Eros”. So where there is no soul, where the positive cannot face the negative, there is no way to understand.

This issue is the essence of the author's work that we face in each of his books, and it is the task of discussing from philosophical doubt how lack and even stigmatizing negativeness to the disinformation of political accuracy helps us perceive as inportune, aggressive, and violent, our lives plunge into a system of aspirations and performances within which we end up unable to understand others and understand ourselves. “Depression is an illness of a society that suffers from the excess of positiveism,” ) writes Han in the book “The tired company”.

What Han tells us in the terms of “the scope of positiveism” is our technical inability to deal with negativeity, just as we experience on the networks a delicate violence that is susbancial to the system and conditioned by the logic of these digital environments, this subtancial exercise on us a “Neural violence” that can lead to depression generated by the inability of those who are not, that is, those who have no opinion, do not live as we do. As a result, Han “kopapsi of unit” is the inevitable result of a “an overuse of identity”.

According to Hanit, on social networks on the Internet, whenever we lock “, x2xx1>, “or “we don't follow the other” that doesn't fit into our world perspective, the world turns into less color and we as incapable subjects to “experimented with negative” we become more fragile. “If the thought itself was a “antibodies and protected natural immunology” then the lack of negativeity would transform thought into an operational army, Han writes to discuss the position of philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Unable to accept the negatives that allow understanding, individuals not only plunge into a digital well-being empty by antagonisms, but are condemned to be marked by “exploitation”.

This is the hypothesis of his book “Piciopolica”, where Han explains who fails in the neoliberal performance society becomes responsible and ashamed instead of questioning society or the system. What he wants to distinguish Hani as Martin Heidegger stated in the XX is that “space cannot think” because her task is to satisfy the performance regime that makes the question of its own priority. The connection between persons and the network has been created about a system that wipes out controversy between proletariat and bourge, as Carl Marx said and transforms the employee into entrepreneurs.

“Neliberisation and not the communist revolution eliminates the working class, subject to the exploitation of others. Today everyone is a worker who uses himself in his own venture. Everyone is a god and a slave. Class warfare also transforms into an internal struggle with itself.” Han claims that thanks to the triumph of Internet technology now, power is an exercise of control over psychics. Smart phones are not only monitoring devices, they're also a confectionary cell phone. Facebook is the church, the global synagogue (literally congregation) of digitalization. Governments invest a lot to register what happens in the congregation. Kurti says Han is confusing one existence without negativeity with another happy existence, confusing a careful power over our concerns with a willing power to change what provokes it.

Skeptics in front of the screens surrounding our lives, Han also thinks of the impact of technology on the “extension of love and sexuality, drawing Eros' universal trait into love. At the next “Eros” the Agony of Eros where it synthesizes his most sensitive and profound lecture of the present: while sexual objects remain always the same, as shows that online pornography is worsening “dosis of our narcitistic unit”. Love, Han says, belongs to the order of the one capable of “to make it start something completely different”. / Source: El Pais World.al