The idea of beauty is born of appreciation of the human forms female related to the conservation of the species.
Then, by the process of abstraction of the brain, we separate the shape of the body originating and leave only the shape as the basis of a lattice, which allowed for the discovery of it in other beings of the nature. Finally, it was used for creation of objects of art.
With the Cold War, the technology transformed the understanding of nature and of man, and with the idea of reductionism, which focuses on only a part of a whole, saw a tremendous advance in the sciences.
From there the specs and consider a part of a whole as if it were the whole.
In the literature, reductionism led to the belief that everything is language, to the extent of considering it an entity with a life of its own. To this I call the “Fetishism of the Language”.
There is a need to consider the idea of the original beauty.
The man clambered into the daily life of a cluster of abstract ideas that make you believe that the world, life, are those abstractions, justified in a convention for the nomination of things, their relationships among themselves and with man.
Take back everything would be a giant step forward to perceive the location of the parts in the all of which they are part; because reductionism has done its work to get us out of a dense forest in which we had mixed into the current idealist and materialist philosophy.
It is time to go into the forest and find the light that will give us the light of the knowledge of the beauty in this new point in history.
As an example of such reductionism I shall quote what he said Todorov, who died recently, in the foreword to “The literature in danger” (Gutenberg Galaxy, 2009):
“How to talk about literature without buckling to the demands of the ideology prevailing? I opted for one of the few pathways that allowed you to escape the general recruitment: pursue issues without ideological content, that is to say, in the literary works, relating to the materiality of the text, its linguistic forms.”
If the study of literature was reduced by the fear or inability to face or confront the dominant ideology, this was further reduced to the level of the fetishism of language.
Now that we see that, as Freud said, we must see what we do with it: follow growing (by interest, by the güeva), or modify it, even though involving creating a new way forward.