Arquivo para a ‘Linguagens’ Categoria

Counterfeiting and beliefs

22 Nov

For Popper, to support the objective world, he hoped to provoke what he called “philosophers of belief” (Popper, 1972, p. 109), namely “Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, or Russell are interested in our subjective beliefs. in its basis of origin ”and thus placed it in its third world (beyond the physical and cognitive) as“ the world of objective content of thought, especially of scientific and poetic thinking and of works of art ”(Popper, 1972, p. 108). ), but his worldview is expressed in the extent of his work, and this is his beyond.
What involves beliefs is not only religious acts, but the fixation on dogmas, or rather the construction of “objective content of thought” that seems to give us certainty where it is only apparent, and thus we fall into the easy path of “induction”. as Hume wanted.
The falsifiability method is not just a way of staying in the critique of science, but it is first of all to point out that many beliefs are “beliefs,” and beliefs themselves can help the human worldview if they understand that they should not be limited. purely to dogmas, I make a single argument using Popper… without criticism there would be no human progress.
These are times of disbelief, and unfortunately it strikes even the most dear to us, human life, there is little appreciation and little discomfort for the vulnerability of life, and beyond human contempt for nature and the planet seems to be. common voice.
But everything is a mark of an end of the epoch, and thought can and should play a very important role in a turn of the epoch, and in the matter of science falsifiability, responsible criticism is clear, and transdisciplinarity can be an essential exercise, yet. little done.
Criticism can be misunderstood, I see many “inductive” thoughts that thinking is not good, if we don’t think and just let the waves go we will go to uncertain destinations.
However, to think is necessary method, and what should be obvious but is not, to be lover of the truth beyond our convictions, to respect and to hear the Other with openness, and to know to go beyond. One phrase said in the revolutionary walls of the Sorbonne of Paris: “our ears have walls, our walls have ears”, it is necessary to superior several types of authoritarianism, and the most serious of all, the non-acceptance of the Other, which is not what we idealized, beyond, simply Other.
Evangelist Luke is the one who essentially follows the “way” of Jesus, so I would say in scientific or hermeneutic terms, the one who gives us “the method of Jesus”, the way in which he narrates his end near his death on the cross is narrated in this perspective.
In Lc 23,40-43, Jesus conducts the dialogue with the two thieves, would say that it is his “falsifiability” to speak of life near his death and in dialogue with two thieves, one mocking and the other asking that he be in his kingdom.
To those who believe the only saint with confirmation of Jesus is a thief (Lk 23:43): “You will still be with me in paradise today,” ironically the only one confirmed by Jesus, there was no other.
This near-death thief could see further: “Remember me in your reign.”
POPPER, k. (1975) Conhecimento Objetivo (Objective Knowledge), Ed. University of São Paulo (Brazilian edition), 1975 (original 1972).


Anguish and the philosophy

30 Oct

A characteristic feeling of a crisis, of a philosophy, science or culture in crisis is anguish, it is so influential in philosophy that it gives meaning even to thinking, one would say philosophical anguish is part of deep feeling. of thinking.
The artist also has this feeling, but the aesthetic directs him, the image of the “scream” is the feeling expressed in Edvard Munch’s painting (1863-1944) portrays the anguish. Anguish, distress, and anxiety are related, and we live in a time when they become increasingly part of the plane of human existence, of scientific and social reflection, and relating it only to poverty is even greater poverty, although there is affliction yes.
According to Adam it was the anguish that preceded Adam’s sin by eating the forbidden fruit of paradise, but before he even knew what sin was, and this caused him to sin, it may seem like a paradox, but it is not, although this is only a metaphor.
It is kierkegaard himself that explains this, the fact that we have possibilities of choice, if we are not fixed in the state of non-self-conscious immediacy, is what leads us to reflection and with it the same possibility that we have of a conscious act without reflection it is that we have an unconscious act and that does lead us to sin, I would say the “true sin”.
It is the possibilities of choice, of our self-knowledge and personal responsibility, leading us from a state of non-self-conscious immediacy to self-conscious reflection, so reflection / anguish is good and makes us conscious in deeds.
Anguish is not despair, although it may be on the brink of it; on the contrary, it is hope.

The reflection of Brazilian professor Dr. Oswaldo Giacóia Jr about Kierkegaard is interesting for the topic:


Idealism and Pharisaism

25 Oct

The pretense of idealism was to create a knowledge system capable of uniquely verifying the truth and for this purpose created a method that relates the subject to the object of knowledge, called transcendental reduction. Idealism split in two shortly after Hegel’s death in 1831, young Hegelians opposed groups of right-wing Hegelians or old Hegelians, who held the department’s chairs and other prestigious positions in university and government.

It was Ferdinand Lassale who defended the fundamental thesis of Hegelianism: “The State is God,” a phrase that Hegel himself was most cautious about. Hegel simply stated that it is “God’s course through the world that constitutes the state” and that in dealing with the state we must contemplate “the Idea, God Himself present on earth.” Only one thinker denounced this falsification of the idea of ​​religion at that time, was David Strauss (1808-1874), a Protestant liberal who wrote “The Life of Jesus” (Das Leven Jesu).

Already the young Hegelians saw the state apparatus as a claim for legitimacy based on religious doctrines, ideas that came from Lutheranism in Prussia, but wanted this theory to apply to any state, to this “fundamentalism” Marx will oppose, saying that it must think of the earth for the sky and not of “ideas” for the earth.

In germ, the ideas of fundamentalism, the almighty state, or the self-righteousness of the state must be governed by biblical “laws,” the whole new testament changes the idea of ​​law to that of man, the incarnation, and the living of faith, not relating it to the state, but people, will give these doctrines an amalgam for the fusion of idealism with religion.

The idea that theocentrism ended with the end of the middle ages is not to read carefully what Hegel proposed, albeit cautiously, but it is the idea that those who observe “the laws” are Christian.

The Bible gives a scandalous example of the tax collector, one who therefore performs the worst duties in the state and the Pharisee, one who follows the “laws” and thinks himself superior.

The biblical text says Luke 18: 11-13: “The Pharisee standing up, I prayed to him,“ O God, I thank you, because I am not like other men, thieves, dishonest, adulterers, nor like this collector. tax, I fast twice a week, and tithe all my income. ‘ But the tax collector stood at a distance, and did not dare look up at the sky, but beat his chest, saying, “My God, have mercy on me that I am a sinner!”

And in the end Jesus says that only one returned home justified.



The crisis of Reason and Kant’s critique

23 Oct

What Kant has tried to solve in his Critique of Pure Reason, as its name implies, is that reason would not be enough, and thus I intend to make two critiques, namely the very idealism to which it proposes itself as a realist (although it seems contradictory, for the Kantians it is not), and the second is the Transcedental Deduction, the essence of their gnosiological method which confuses with another view of the transcendent, which is that of mystery, beyond the idealistic rational view.
What Kant called “transcendental realism” (of course there are several versions, including many that are contradictory to each other), was to conceive a critical distinction between epistemic conditions (it was Henri Allison who used this term) and are forms of systematization of knowledge with conditions. supposedly ontological, which are nonetheless ontic, for they are but possibilities of things themselves, and separate from the subject, is the idealistic transcendent.
Their refutation of idealism is viewed by the Kantians themselves as having: problematic, dogmatic, and empirical versions, which at bottom refer to the object of the “outside world,” that is, it contests every possibility of objective knowledge, and for this they hold or on the plane. empirical (clear through experience) or the transcendental plane, here as a resource for the subject to reach the plane of objects, in a clear separation between subjectivity and objectivity.
Kantian dualism remains in the problematic or dogmatic question, the former as a primacy of subjective awareness of perceptions and self-awareness of the domain of objectivity.
What characterizes Kant with his attempt to approach realism is in fact a transcendental dualist. It is because it ends by realizing the impossibility of knowing things as they are in themselves, and ends by defending isolation in subjectivity and a false interiority of presentations (making it present) and concluding, here, that it is dogmatic or skeptical that What we believe to be objective knowledge is actually a flow of perceptual impressions devoid of any objectivity, so the idealistic dualism of equidistant subject and object remains.
The way in which Kant will understand his “principled” relationship with self-awareness (in the Cartesian sense “I think”) and is with objective knowledge, must come along with his “deduction” which is essentially divergent with respect to his own. view of the Cartesian conception of the cogito, but both will not escape the conception of the ego, the transcendent self, or other analogies, which are well described in Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations.
The instrumental reason that much of the idealist discourse struggles with the object of knowledge and its corresponding cognitive subject, its cognitive transcendence, will always be tied to the essential dualism of the separation of subject and object, its consequences to daily life are clear.
So what we think of everyday as objective, concrete or any substitute in the relationship with things, and with the knowledge of them as a result, will always be in the “outer world” or the physical world, with which the relationship will always remain under false mystery, subjectivity or the perceptions of self-awareness, or even, is an experience of the subject.

See the video about idealism realistic em TEDx of the Daniel Wong:


The crisis of reason: technophobia

22 Oct

It was not Gerard Lebrun who coined the term technology, it was Jean-Pierre Séris (1941-1994) who among several issues in his text “La Technique” talks about a “strange transformation” that recalls the memories of Kantian questions: “What should I do? What can I do? What am I allowed to wait for? ”And that he ironically said what seems increasingly common:“ What should I ignore? What should I refrain from doing? ”(Lebrun apud Novaes, 1996, p. 471).
Speaking of the impact of the technique, it will not exemplify with the digital world, but bioethics, as a science of survival according to its inventor the American Potter in 1970, but well reminds Lebrun that in 1995 the International Bioethics Committee declared the genome “common heritage”. of humanity ”, saying that 20 years earlier the speech stigmatized this“ technique ”.
Lebrun says that the author “never takes sides ideologically”, and moves away from what he calls “passionate speeches”, does not adopt a “contrary to technique detractors” stance and reassures that “nothing in this book minimizes the dangers this or that risky technological intervention could bring the biosphere or animal life ”(idem, p. 471).
Clarifying that criticizing “was never synonymous with demonizing: in using the word criticism, neither Marx nor Kant preached a witch hunt” (Lebrun, p. 472), and was by the way another text in the same book of the “crisis of reason” we used in the previous post, the dissent, to disagree is to dialogue.
Lebrun clarifies that the use of the “technology” anglicism, “which erases the difference between things and the discourse about the thing … even more criticizable is the technoscience neologism, used to designate, very nebulously, a symbiosis between technique and technology. science, whose modalities, most of the time, are not careful to need ”(idem), using the concepts of Séris.
The fact that users are ignorant of using a technical device does not mean that there is an “intrinsic malignancy of the technique” (p. 472), or is it sufficient that Chernobyl, or a major blackout in New York or even a boy who can get secrets out of the Pentagon from his computer … which we use all the time (the Thaumata, as the Greeks used to refer to machines), become, at least potentially, unethical objects again ”(pages 472- 3).
It is fear that wants us to inculcate control of “technological progress,” the author cites Hans Jonas in his work “The Principle of Responsibility” is what makes JP Séris dissatisfied, but he also draws on Bernard Sève’s arguments that what Jonah calls “second-degree power,” distinguishing him from first-degree power “that which man exercises over nature through technique, that is, from man’s traditional image and power of intervention, in always controllable principle ”(page 473).
Remember that this power comes from Bacon who created a formula for this power in the first degree, and that Jonah will say that in unleashing the power in the second degree it will be necessary “unless the sentence is dictated by the disaster itself, it is a power over the power. power, ”
Then, is nothing other than the failure of the Baconian ideal, but who agrees not to subdue nature? thus the problem is not of technique but of the original domination of nature. We thus return to the initial questions “What should I do? What am I allowed to wait for? ”Jonas himself acknowledges that one cannot know the long-term effects of either technology or drugs, so“ will not undefined fear lean us against innovation, in favor of abstention? ”(Pag 476), I add, is it not fear that drives tyrants to power?
LEBRUN, G.Sobre a Tecnofobia (About technophobia). In: Novaes, Adauto. A crise da Razão: (The crisis of Reason). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1996.


For a spiritual ascesis

18 Oct

What we see beyond the crisis and cultural night, beyond a deep social crisis without a thought that catalyses the real forces of society that point to the future, is also a night of God, educator Martin Buber describes it as God’s Eclipse.
Buber wrote in his book: “I later built for myself the meaning of the word ‘mismatch’, through which was roughly described the failure of a true encounter between human beings. When, after another 20 years, I saw my mother, who had come to visit me, my wife, and my children from afar, I couldn’t look into her still astonishingly beautiful eyes without hearing the word “mismatch” somewhere as if it were. tell me.
I suppose that everything I have experienced over the course of my life about the authentic encounter has its first origin at that time in the gallery. ”(BUBER, 1991, p. 8). Thus revealing the true face of the “silence of God” of Judaism in which it has its roots, will be in another book the “I-Thou” where he will reveal an aspect of his asceticism which is “the encounter with the Other”, which for Buber more. than one person, your Tu has a divine essence, God inhabits the other.
These days there are two strong tendencies, and in both asceses there is in fact no spirituality beyond transcendence, or the activism that Byung Chul condemns as the “active vita” that leads to tiredness, or the idealistic subjectivism that can It seems to be religion but it is not, what it arouses is nothing but sentimentality, and can lead to “faithful” tears, not necessarily to God, if they do discover Him they must seek another true asceticism.
Thus it is possible that they will find God in one way or another, but there is no other way to remain in the faith, not of the blind but of those who have found a clearing, if indeed meditation and prayer are to remain, they are indispensable.
For those who have no faith, a good reading, separating passages and thoughts, living the moment as we wrote in the previous post, is fundamental, that is, also for reading can follow the rule of doing it without “gluttony”, try put the soul in silence, making a true “epoché”.
To those who believe always reflect that Jesus prayed, and asked his disciples to pray with him, and not to lose this practice, Jesus will tell the parable of the bad judge who does not want to attend the widow, but by his insistence and so that she does not. he curses, he answers, says the opening passage: “Jesus told the disciples a parable to show them the need to pray always, and never give up…”, which is in Luke 18: 1.
BUBER, Martin. (1995) Eclipse de Dios. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1995.


Common sense and gratitude

10 Oct

The common sense from which Popper wrote is not the simple objectivity or subjectivity developed by idealist philosophy, or the intersubjectivity that connects the subjectivity of individuals or discourses, is the possibility of attaining knowledge of things, situations and people that leads to knowledge. in a way of knowing that they have cultural, social or even beliefs that lead them to proactive attitudes.
So you take acts done in isolation into a virtuous circle of attitudes, of course Popper did not speak of gratitude, but Marcel Mauss wrote in the 1920s the theory of giving, or the “gift” of simply rewarding or rewarding positive attitudes, But there is no problem in having remuneration, this is its idealistic aspect, even in this case there may be gratuity if made as a gift to those who receive the service.
What leads to gratitude rather than reward is how the word etymological origin is the notion of gratuitousness that must accompany even those acts for which there is just compensation, without being an instrumentalized or corrupting form of that act.
Thus collaboration, cooperation and even totally free actions that may involve values, such as paid wages, which should be thought of as acts of brotherhood and compassion as those involved in that act.
Just as continuous acts lead to an attitude, so continuous gratitude can lead to gratitude, can and should not because there is a difference in both cases that it is the fact that if it does not become an act and a social gratitude, even though attitude and gratitude can getting lost and leading to discontinuity of acts and gratitude, this is a problem in certain cultures.


Gratitude, the question of science and common sense

09 Oct

A person may be grateful without understanding the goals of gratitude, but they will not understand the goals if they do not know the true motivations of gratitude, that is, remaining in gratitude can be free of knowledge, but have gratitude (make it a habit healthy) requires going beyond the simple gratuitous act, knowing it and cultivating it to work in society.
Thus, it is necessary to separate appreciable common sense from objective knowledge, which is to dissect the object of knowledge that can be done both inductively and intuitively, both paths are valid, so it is not necessary conventional but intentional science.
To talk about science we need to talk about Karl Popper, he also speculated about being things, said about common sense is valid, but upholding the truths of it is something bigger. But objective knowledge, he said, was an eternal pursuit of his life, in his words: “The essays in this book break with a tradition that can be traced back to Aristotle – the tradition of this common sense theory of knowledge.
I am a great admirer of common sense, which I claim is essentially self-critical ”, But to uphold it as truth requires more: “… if I am willing to uphold to the end the essential truth of common sense realism, I regard the common sense theory of knowledge as a subjectivist blunder.
This blunder has dominated Western philosophy, ”as understood by feelings, passions, and even sustaining nonobjective questions.
He goes on: “I have been trying to eradicate it and replace it with an objective theory of knowledge, essentially conjectural. This may be a bold claim, but I do not apologize for it ” (Popper, 1975, p. 07).
Popper’s division into three worlds shows a weakness in his theory by separating knowledge into three worlds: P1 the world of nature (or physical in the sense of physis), the world of minds (World 2) and the world of ideas (World 3), prioritizes the latter.
In a solution to a problem, people can attack or accept the solution found, but not the person who presented it, so it gives a greater value than the world of ideas (World 3) has to Popper, rather than the World of minds (World 2) who developed them.
Gratitude is just the opposite, because the minds that develop solutions to the problem (World 2) are more important than the ideas that drive them (World 3), although subjectivism, which is proper to the subject, may also have weaknesses.
What embraces these three distinct aspects: Nature, Knowledge and Ideas, are ontological aspects, for the three are proper to Being, gratitude is one of these aspects.

Popper, K. (1975) Conhecimento objetivo (Objective Knowledge). Brazil, São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo.


Naming elephant and worldview

13 Sep

Deceased in February last year, American and Christian philosopher James W. Sire (1933-2018) did extensive research behind the worldview issue, said it took 30 years, published in 2004, probably to begin to address the theme in 1974.

Also his worldview must be reread, I mean that from 1974 to 2004 the world underwent transformations that it deepened, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the cold war that now seems to be reborn, the fall of dictatorships that seem to come back in all over the planet.

I have not read the book, but one of the book’s chapters and also its commentators have helped formulate an idea, though inaccurate, of his main book Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, publisher IVP Academic), and the chapter I refer to is the Definitions of Worldview: from Dilthey to Naugle, which in the title is suggestive of some idealism which the text confirms early on, is available on google Books.

It says at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the origin of the term Weltanschauung originated with Kant (1724-1804), “but only in passing,” and quotes Dilthey verbatim: “to denote a set of beliefs that underlie and shape all human thought and action.” ”(Sire, 2004, p. 23), denoting a set of beliefs that underpin and shape all human thought and action.

Although appropriate, perhaps the most thorough analysis of the term, Heidegger’s reading which updated and developed the subject in a broader sense than that of Kant and Dilthey is lacking, and Hans Georg Gadamer will rightly criticize Dilthey’s conception of the idealist.

To follow the concept of Weltanschauung Cites Nietszche, Wittgenstein, with tours of Plato and Descartes, Foucault and passing Rorthy art, and then begins to address evangelical Christian authors (Reformed is the name abroad), James Orr, Abraham Kuyper , Herman Dooyeweerd, Ronald Nash until he comes to what he calls the new synthesis that would be David Naugle.

However, never runs away from idealism, says he goes from ontology to hermeneutics (not the other way around) and says that this synthetic view is characterized by a “system”. semiotic of narrative signs ”(Sire, 2004, p. 42) quoting Naugle who made such a synthesis. However, the true synthesis hidden behind the text, with a clear nominalist view and the idea of ​​a semiotic system, reveals itself by quoting the biblical text: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe me also, referring to the biblical passage in John 14: 1, because you then ignore the text that says, “In my father’s house are many mansions.”

The idea of ​​signs, myths and symbols embedded in narratives that represent a worldview is not negligible, and it is even important, however any view that is solely about narrative does not do the work of removing the anthropological view and the real “historical view”.  Of what happened, being the idealist and unreal vision of Dilthey’s historicism.

There is another more significant passage, the so-called return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:10: 32), which some idealistic authors and exegetes dislike the name, seeking to idolize the eldest son who stayed at home with his father, who is more conservative. therefore, but also his prodigal son, his defect, went to the world to experiment.

The fact that he returned is commendable, but what a worldview he brought from his deviance, in fact their father is merciful to his conservative and rebel. 


Pride, prejudice and vanity

28 Aug

I had to go to the Web to find some references from Pride and Prejudice, a book of my youth, written by Jane Austen that references have sold 2.3 million copies, and published in 1813, Austen would have written the 21 years old, in 1797, this is important because the nineteenth century begins with the impacts of the industrial revolution and severe social crises, while the previous one still hovered over a certain “romanticism”.
The problems related to education, culture, and morals of that turn of the century in the conservative aristocratic society are problematized in the book in an interesting and somewhat peculiar way in addressing the prejudice theme.
The novel tells of an aristocratic but decaying Bennet family who lives on a farm on a farm called Netherfield, where a young aristocrat Mr. Bingley rents a morally going estate near the Bennet, which has four married girls, and he takes Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst her sisters, her brother-in-law Mr. Hurst, and a friend Mr. Darcy, who will be a protagonist with flirting and flirting with Elizabeth Bennet, the peculiarity being the prejudices between her and Mr. Darcy, whom she eventually marries.
Class problems apart, they are all decadent or not aristocrats, the bottom line is between provincialism and a broader social view, the novel’s peculiarity, and the nuances between vanity, prejudice, and pride, which can be clearly differentiated.
These are not different definitions, but social positions where vanity, the theme of a glance is present in virtually every character, and shows how complex the social relationship is thanks to it, pride where undercover interests can make it a superb detriment of relationships, and finally prejudice where differences (or distinctions) affect people’s lives, relationships and create tensions that are slowly becoming unreasonable.
It still has the romanticism of the time, the frivolity of the English aristocracy, but the fact that until now the novel is still successful is because it can touch on topics little understood and about which little elaboration exists.
A mini-series was made in the 1950s for TV, in 2004 a movie was made under the direction of Joe Wrigth, while writer Helen Fielding calls Mark Darcy her “ideal man” in reference to Mr. Darcy’s novel, shows the importance of Jane Austen’s book.
The movie is available on the telecine and the thriller below can give you an idea of the movie