Arquivo para a ‘Information ethics’ Categoria
Existence, repetition and Being
In philosophy you can have form (morphé) and matter (hilé) and all beings have morphé-form and hilé-matter, but in-formation depends on thinking, it depends on the availability to the act of thinking and not just the repetition, here we find this second topic, that repeating does not just mean becoming redundant, the civilizing problem remains if we do not move forward.
In a lecture in 2016, at the UFRGS Hall of Acts (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil) Sloterdijk already sentenced: “I think the reality today is similar to how we were in 1915 – he commented, comparing the current panorama with a time in the last century when the First World War had just started and had not happened… ”, this situation only worsened, the pandemic could be a pause, but it was not..
Access to human existence in a new kind of record implies an articulation of meaning for Being and life, the path taken from Husserl to Heidegger, and then with Gadamer is what links hermeneutics to ontology, and in Gadamer the text is explicit. hermeneutic circle method.
It can be thus described by following Gadamer’s reasoning: it must not be degraded to a vicious circle, even if it is tolerated, in it it holds a positive possibility of originating knowledge, which, of course, will only be properly understood when interpretation understands its task first.
This constant first and last task remains that of not receiving beforehand, through a “happy idea” or through popular concepts, neither the previous position nor the previous vision, but in securing the scientific theme in the elaboration of these concepts. from the same thing. (GADAMER, 1998, p. 401).
Considering the method we return to the essential question of Being, which is the forgetting in Western philosophy of this concept from Plato to Nietzsche, and thus we have a metaphysics or its negation, both incompletely because such an essential concept has not been addressed.
It is the forgetting of being, which the philosopher diagnoses throughout the Western philosophical tradition, beginning with Plato and extending to Nietzsche. In his work “What is metaphysical” (written in 1929), Heidegger defines existence as follows: “The word existence means a way of being and, undoubtedly, of the being of that being that is open to the opening of being, in which lies while sustaining it.” (HEIDEGGER,1989, p.59).
Without this essential category discussion and thought are tied to the “being,” which Thomas Aquinas defines it thus: “From which it follows that the essence, by which a thing is called the ‘being,’ is not only form, nor only matter, but both, although in its own way only form is the cause of this being ”(Aquino, 2008, pp 10), in this ontological line there is no separation between Ent and Being, even in English the words can be the same (Being).
Thus we have beyond Being, its aggregate category of being, which is inseparable from it essential concept.
AQUINO, T. O Ente e a Essência, Universidade da Beira Interior. LusoSofia.Press, Covilhã, PT, 2008.
HEIDEGGER, Martin. Que é metafísica? In: HEIDEGGER, Martin. Conferências e escritos filosóficos. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1989.
GADAMER, H.G. Verdade e Método: Traços fundamentais de uma hermenêutica filosófica. Tradução de Flávio Paulo Meurer. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1998.
The foundations of the idea concept
Following Sloterdijk’s reasoning, in which the fundamentals must be thought and in function of them one can return to the principle and preconception of each thought, one can revise idea with the Greek “eidos”.
The eidetic sense of hermeneutics is that which promotes the unification of the internal and the external in the manifestations of life, in the natural sciences the object is seen by itself (returning things for themselves), in the idealistic sciences the “object” is that achieved by a continuous effort of the researcher (the Kantian transcendence), although he commits himself to return to tradition frequently, the whole is not renewed, because the “object” is separated from itself by isolated observation, outside of Being and possible preconceptions, is the “idea”.
For Aristoteles there were universal principles, not as Kant later thought, but from the idea of the one (tó hen), what is (tó on) and the genres (animals, plants, living beings), while essence (eidos) does not. would be a universal, but something common (koinos) to multiple things, there is therefore not in Aristotle the idealistic dualism, but the separation between universals and essence.
In Plato this dualism is accentuated, the sensible world and the world of ideas (still in the sense of eidos, essence), this separation will be troublesome to the modern idealists, who will unite it, but without a necessary philosophical reflection. the dichotomy subject and object never reunited as a being.
Ontology, and the method of philosophical hermeneutics, is an attempt to bring these fields together, although they remain distinct and under tension, but with possibilities of clarification beyond the classical separation.
Gadamer in his work matter “Truth and Method” vol. II, picks it up like this: “Hermeneutics is the art of understanding. It seems especially difficult to understand the problems of hermeneutics, at least as unclear concepts of science, criticism, and reflection dominate the discussion.
And this is because we live in an age where science is increasingly dominating nature and governing the management of human coexistence, and this pride of our civilization, which relentlessly corrects the lack of success and constantly produces new tasks of scientific inquiry, where once again progress, planning, and damage removal are grounded, develops the power of true blindness. ”(Gadamer, 1996: 292).
Gadamer after explaining that the return to Being proposed by Heidegger is a return to the hermeneutic method, which was neither to develop a theory of the sciences of the spirit (as idealism did, and the German in particular) nor to propose a critique of historical reason, as Dilthey did, and which Gadamer will clarify in his book “The Question of Historical Consciousness” to say that it is not even historical romanticism.
Its ultimate goal is expressed by stating: “what I did was put dialogue at the center of hermeneutics” (Gadamer, 1996, p. 27), but its dialogue is neither idealism (would be absurd) nor any form of philosophical blindness, it is precisely the rescue of philosophical hermeneutics.
Therefore, their dialogue is neither idealistic dogmatism, but nowadays theory has become ahistorical dogmatism, but rather the identification of preconceptions, from which it is possible to merge horizons as well as to accept worldview distinctions.
Gadamer, Hans Georg. Verdad y Metodo (Truth and method) v. II. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1996.2v.
About truth and philosophy
It was rationalism that led to doubts about external existence (the Other, objects and the outer castle, etc.), already in the classic division of body and mind, the question until the end of the Middle Ages was between realists and nominalists, the former said that the real is that it exists and the seconds that we only name what is external, what exists is in the mind, today there is the linguistic turnaround (or virage).
Imannuel Kant states that the perceptions of the senses are after the experience while a universal a priori is necessary, using the realists’ argument, calling it analytical judgment while the first are the synthetic ones, made from the gathering of information.
The pinnacle of idealism is Hegel, which sets out several ideal concepts: state, spirit, and ethics, but the crisis of modernity will return to old dilemmas: language, discourse, and what is the thing or Being, there are then three twists: the linguistic, the ontological and the “sacred”.
Karl Klaus (1874-1936) already complained about the truth in the journalistic medium, it is true that the cultural industry moved masses, and the network media now too, but what about the truth?
The truth of facticity has lost its strength, there are alternative views and even the corruption of facts, something absurd as “alternative facts”, is not at all hermeneutic because it is precisely its absence, the lack of a hermeneutic circle where preconceptions are. overcome and new horizons can be traced that reinterpret the facts and build the future.
Groups entrenched in their half-truths behave only as twisted, dialogical, acceptance of the Other, and Empathy are but demagogic forms as attempts to co-opt members for the crowd itself.
Of course there is a latent future, sectors of society where cooperation, solidarity and the exercise of seeing the Other is already exercise, are groups and people who have changed the dogmatic way of seeing the world for a broader vision, beyond the group and from the crowd.
But still there are those who closing ranks in their “groups” will demand blind obedience, respect for “authority,” and often will resort to authoritarian methods of bending the Other.
Truth will emerge amid chaos, in the niches of society where there is Phronesis, true reflection, looking at the world as a whole and the other with respect to its particularities.
Hermeneutics and the truth
The great architect of of hermeneutics in the 20th century was Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), who created a philosophical hermeneutics, influenced by the studies of Martin Heidegger, of whom he was a student at Universität Marburg, reworked the concept of the hermeneutical circle from Heidegger.
In his masterpiece Truth and Method: elements of a philosophical hermeneutics, published in 1960, Gadamer not only revolutionized modern Western hermeneutics, but also reoriented it by creating a new philosophical hermeneutics based on the ontology of language. According to Heidegger the hermeneutics is philosophical and non-scientific (in the sense of conventional methods still in force), ontological and non-epistemological, existential and not methodological, because it seeks the essence of understanding and not its norm or “method”, the method oscillates between positivism and rationalism, but without belong to the phenomenon.
The study and understanding of existence, since it allows knowledge of the Being, precedes the norms, even the one considered “ethical” by the Enlightenment / idealism, of social rules and not moral rules, says the theo-ontology why the “Saturday belongs to Man and not Man belongs to Saturday”, here in reference to the “Jewish ethical rule” or Sabbatarians to keep the Sabbath. According to Heidegger, hermeneutics would be philosophical rather than scientific; ontological rather than epistemological; existential rather than methodological. It would be responsible for seeking the essence of understanding, not the standardization of the comprehensive process.
The study of comprehension would be confused with the study of existence, since it would allow the knowledge of the Self.
Although contemporary hermeneutics comes from Schleiermacher and Dilthey, who advocated opening the spirit to an age that judges the antecedent, and this would be the historical process, Gadamer points out that we cannot abandon the present and take the past as having a “historical lesson”.
On the contrary, it is the terms of past questions that can define the terms of the present. The fact that man experiences a historical reality causes his worldview, and consequently, his possibilities of knowledge to depart from the preconceptions that surround him, making it impossible to completely eliminate them, so that he can read the absolute truth, as intended modern illuminists and historicists, is a veil over the truth and not itself.
The hermeneutic circle that was already drawn in Heidegger’s work from Gadamer’s point of view has an ontologically positive sense for understanding, which, according to him, in the course of interpretation, the elaboration of new projects and a new horizon is necessary.
Thus only with the admission of the preconceptions coming from the historicity of the interpreter that when properly analyzed in their veracity, allows a new understanding, the development of new horizons, truly coherent.
Going from pre-comprehension to analysis and synthesis is to remain in error, however creative this process may be, the rupture of preconceptions comes from outside, from openness and reworking.
That is why addicted, closed, provincial and demagogic systems succumb, crush the Being, claim to give it “identity”, but give only closure and obsession.
Euphoria and Serenity
The opposite of serenity is not irritation or anger, this is the opposite of calmness, the opposite is euphory, we have already posted the relationship between serenity and Phronesis, a Greek word that could be translated as practical wisdom, central in Hans Georg Gadamer’s book, and which in our view is approaches serenity.
There are those who believe in euphoria after covid.
This is because we live in times of impulsive reactions to the questions posed, in which after euphoria comes depression and discouragement, which at heart are always lacking in phronesis, though many draw attention to action, to practice, but detached from wisdom.
In Truth and Method II (second volume), prevailing statements about the dialogical structure of language thought to guide the world (and our worldview) and the clearer relationship between thought and language.
His clarification of the historical question was Gadamer who overcame Dilthey’s and others’ discussion of romantic historicity, his philosophical hermeneutics deepening as a hermeneutic of listening, listening and listening, the true view of the Other.
Gadamer in the second volume gives structure to a phrase by the Russian writer Leon Tolstoy: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” if truth is hard to tell, when practiced in wisdom Phronesis it opens a “clearing”, the Listening to each other.
Does the universe “hear” us, do plants and animals “hear” us, we need to understand their language and in this sense language is not anything just talking, it is listening.
In the video below Gadamer portrays the history of philosophy, but with phronesis and truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KJNQoIXZ4k
The desired and not built peace
We know that the “pax romana” was the surrender to the empire that dominated the good face of the civilized world at the time, it is true today that there were already people in various parts of the planet, but their paleontological records do not leave many marks of their cultures, and perhaps as Rousseau thought ‘the good savage’ lived in peace, but in the natural conflict with nature.
The “eternal peace” elaborated by the idealists and idolized by the worshipers of the “modern state” is not deepened, because in fact for many this will be the state, excuse the final irony of humanity and should only be perfected. Kant published in 1798, in a Berlin magazine, the essay “Announcement of the forthcoming signing of a treaty for perpetual peace in philosophy”, which was a resumption of his essay two years earlier: “For perpetual peace”, that was confined in its philosophy.
This is because the goal was to resolve peace within a single state, or in terms of relations between different states, which we can see even with the emergence of the UN and the rise of democratic nations, which in essence the idea of state remains enlightened. .
From this essay it can be assumed that what the philosopher understood by philosophy means that if systems of philosophy found a solution to their conflicts they could help political systems to resolve their conflicts, so it remains in the idealistic field.
The conflict between object and subject, which supposes that it is in the object that is the conflict and not in the subject is the hypothesis of the idealism/enlightenment system, but it is in the facticity of the historical subjects that the conflicts are, I do not understand as the historicity romantic because facticity is the Heideggerian concept of the subject thrown into the world with his facts.
Thus, what is meant by peace beyond idealism is that which can be built on the facticity of everyday life, in every conflict encountered in every fact, without being confined to theoretical or philosophical assumptions, but where the “being thrown” is. in the world”.
Peace, therefore, is built and not an agreement between states or within them, the peace treaty of the 1st. world war led to the second, some readers of world history say, the fact is that there were two wars and the “modern” states not only did not avoid, but are authors. “If you want peace, build peace,” said an Italian politician, very few understanding this.
A post-pandemic will be problematic, it may even lead to a civilizational crisis, where many measures should be taken from now on.
Anguish, existence and vanity
As we have already discussed, the anguish of our time is the tension with Being, maintaining “authenticity with oneself”, not being carried away by the current of expectations and impositions of temporal powers, and thus dealing with the frustrations of holding firm perennial values and dealing with oneself. with the transients.
From this stems the search for an existence where there is Fortune (our happiness), but the Greeks who used reference to the goddess Fortuna (picture), knew well that it was not related to the possession of goods, as stated Heraclitus of Ephesus: “if the If happiness were in the pleasures of the body, we would say happy oxen when they find peas to eat”, some prefer peas.
When we do not live the repetition as expounded by Professor Giacóia in the sense of seeking the essence, we enter the repetition of sameness that lives from fear, which leads us to live in impropriety, we do not attribute meaning (or meaning some prefer), we let others and circumstances attribute it, we live the worst alienation, the alienation of ourselves, running everywhere with full and empty agendas at the same time, frivolities said Sloterdik.
We live for a purpose that has no end, in the sense of goal, but “borrowed” meanings of daily life, conjunctures and contexts. Anguish produces the opposite effect. It opens up the possibility of finding what I am within a proper sense of life.
It is the reunion with the Self, open to the world and the Other, without implying either individual closure or depersonalization of the environment, today with the strong pressure of psychopower, as thinker Byung Chul Han defines the essential pressure of this time.
What we seek, what is our goal, should ultimately be seen as end, never as temporal: money, power, wealth or simply some vanity.
Joy and dialogue
It is practically impossible to think of opposite poles, but in hermeneutic dialogue it is possible to put preconceptions aside to fuse horizons.
They are opposite poles that produce energy, for example, they are opposing forces that maintain equilibrium, the imbalance is precisely one force breaking the other as is the case of atomic fission, which produces a bomb, but still dominated is an energy.
Respect for the Other, in times of a pandemic, means observing the distance, wearing masks and showing solidarity with those who suffer the effects of the pandemic, also in the social question.
The importance of principles, or spirituality or even the divine among us, is necessary for this to be done without the possibility of rupture being the only alternative, and sometimes it is.
The joy we experience when we open ourselves to others, giving up even our own preconceptions (we all have concepts about life, the truth, etc.) is inconceivable, but always real.
The problem raised by the philosophy of the Other, which is not the same, is the first principle for authentic dialogue, in times of global citizenship it will be more than necessary, it will be the only rich source for dialogue and harmony between peoples and cultures.
The non-acceptance of the Other, whether culturally, socially or ethnically is the reason for current conflicts, beyond acts done without any ethics, but that Spinozian ethic that each has its purpose. Joy is possible even in dark times,
Between fear and trust
The struggle for power and the greed of great profits invaded all environments and a factor that leads to an environment is mistrust, in general it is the result of fears that the pandemic generated and anxiety about the vaccine.
Fear of the different, the unconventional and dare, think in frontier areas or even outside the sciences, the mysteries, spiritualities and the human.
There is a distance between trust and fear is discernment, almost always tied to the conventional.
To trust is to dare, it is to go against the Other, the different and the mystery.
The pandemic revealed two faces of humanity, a good one which is the capacity for resilience, respect for health and care for the Other, and a dark side of let it happen and see what happens. The posts will be shorter due to the vacation period, always providing some reflection .
Possible pax
It is not social, political or ethical peace that is always in conflict, although there are integrative movements and a worldwide tendency towards global citizenship, living in the village (with communications is global) and feeling a citizen of the world.
The next generation will be able to accomplish this, the “mature” generation now has setbacks in reading the present, and this has caused fear and distrust by breaking feelings of respect and otherness.
The measures of force are discouraging and reprocessing of the social process, moving towards autocracies and arbitrariness, they are never democratic.
The pax roman was submission to the central power of Rome, the peace of Westphalia was a treaty of religious tolerance among Christians and eternal peace the idealistic dream in the power of the modern state.
Possible peace is tolerance of differences and acceptance of human limits in times of crisis, depends on some dose of the spiritual.