Arquivo para a ‘Linguagens’ Categoria
The eclipse of god
23
Aug
Martin Buber’s book with this name deals with
how we can find in the philosophy and history of religion, from pre-Socratic philosophers to 20th century thinkers, an interpretation of Western beliefs, with emphasis on the relationship between religion and philosophy, with ethics and Jungian psychology, which was worth a reply from Jung and a rejoinder from Buber.
We live, as Buber says, in a time of God’s eclipse, when seeing the Moon pass in front of the Sun, it seems that it no longer exists, when in fact it is covered up, this is curious, because the controversy with Jung is caused by a question in In an interview about the existence of God, Jung replied: “I don’t need to believe, I know” (Jung, 1977, p. 428).
This caused a furor at the time and even today books like God: a Delusion (the title in English is The God delusion) we find a quote on page 51, in a book that shows Dawkins’ delusions more than the delusions of those who believe, mainly what in philosophy it refers to the Absolute, whose culmination of Western elaboration is Hegel’s abstract concept of the Absolute.
Hegel’s absolute, which is an articulation between the dualistic objective and subjective of idealism, is a singularity of a substantial power, proper to subjectivity and the concept as having a universal substance, which through abstraction becomes effective in self-consciousness and becomes if equal to essence, an essential I-myself species.
Jung’s later comment, expressed chiefly in a letter to a friend which has been published, he explains: “Whatever I perceive from without or from within is a representation or image…caused, as I rightly or wrongly suppose, by a corresponding “real” object. But I have to admit that my subjective image is only roughly identical to the object… our images are, as a rule, of something… the God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something I cannot reach by intellectual means…” (Jung, 1959).
Jung’s response, without articulating it in an implicitly philosophical way, is a response to idealist subjectivism, it cannot be reached through reason, it is an object of faith, of belief and whoever has it has it inside and out while being at the same time subjective and objective.
The biblical passage that best illustrates this feeling is the one (Jn 15, 45-46): “The Kingdom of Heaven is also like a buyer looking for precious pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all his possessions and buys that pearl.”
Jung, C.G. (1977) The Face do Face entrevista in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, Princeton, Belligen paperbacks, p. 424-439.
Jung, C.G. (1959), Letter to Valentine Brooke in C.G. Jung Letters, Volume 2, 1951-1961, edited by Gerhard Adler, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), pp. 525-526, 1959
About the modern and God
22
Aug
If it is true that the religious discourse of our days borders on insanity, it is also true that what modernity thought and still thinks about God is practically unknown.
Born to a family of Lutheran pastors, Nietzsche did not speak of the Death of God as his shallow reading thinks, they did not read the Gay Science where the philosopher proclaims “The mad man – You have not heard of that mad man who in the middle of the morning lit a lantern and ran to the market , and began to cry out incessantly: ‘I’m looking for God! I’m looking for God!’?” drink the sea entirely? Who gave us the sponge to erase the horizon? What have we done, in untying the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?'” is in §125.
He sought in the philosophy of the East: Thus spoke Zarathustra the lost mystique, but his work The Birth of Tragedy has striking passages where he shows the need to understand this way of understanding life, where he makes studies on the Apollonian and the Dionysian, where chapter 5 it is believed that this is where Heidegger starts to write the Origin of the Work of Art.
From Husserl’s Influence were born the philosophies of Heidegger and Edith Stein, who later became mystic, being Jewish became Christian and was a martyr in Nazi Germany, still under the influence of Heidegger is Hannah Arendt, whose doctoral thesis is “Love in Santo Agostinho”, although there are gaps that his contemporaries attest, it is a good read.
From Hannah Arendt came the meditations on Vitta Activa and Vitta Contemplativa, which the contemporary philosopher Byung Chul Han will take up again in his Society of Tiredness, not forgetting to touch on the Christian philosophy of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (or Nazianzen).
He was strongly influenced by Peter Sloterdijk, who despite his atheism, in all his works the deep marks of the knowledge of Christian thought, claims the prophet Jonah to say that we all have a whale (Jonas when refusing his mission was devoured by a whale and returned to the beach) and a little Jonas, refuses our mission on this planet.
Byung Chul Han makes a very current diagnosis, he adds that the “modern loss of faith, which concerns not only God and the beyond, but reality itself, becomes radically transitory human life” (Han, p. 42) .
This is not a separate problem, it is an essential part of modern thought, refusal of the essential, adoption of the transitory, fleeting and frivolous life and of fleeting and ecstatic pleasures.
Han, Byung Chul. (2015) Burnout Society. Ed. Stanford Briefs; 1ª ed., Stanford, USA.
Between testimony and forgiveness: the cure
18
Aug
Paul Ricoeur’s analysis of whether forgiveness can heal
ranges from memory to oblivion, but the author clarifies that “in the framework of the broader dialectic of the space of experience and the horizon of experience”, and recalls that Freud calls this “translaboration”, which means overcoming the belief that the past is closed and determined and the future is indeterminate and open.
Past facts are inerasable: we cannot undo what was done, nor make what happened not happen, but we must remember that the testimony of those who suffered the facts or who practiced them can and must be modified, depending on “our memories”.
It is not about forgiveness, or about building a new narrative, but Paul Ricoeur recalls Raymond Aron in his Introduction to the Philosophy of History, as what he calls the “retrospective illusion of fatality” and which he opposes to the historian’s obligation to transport himself to the moment of action and become contemporary with the authors.
The author sentences: “all memory is selective”, and reminds the author “if one could implement the oblivion of escape, the strategy of excuse, the task of bad faith, which makes passive-active oblivion a perverse undertaking”, then not just forget, but re-see.
The point in Ricoeur’s text where the testimony can be inserted is precisely this where he states, trying to combine forgiveness with work and mourning: “He marries one and the other. And, joining both, it brings what in itself is not work, but precisely a don”. Isn´t gift because in French (don, term used in the work of Marcel Mauss) or in Italian donno, whose translation is difficult but would be gratuity, I don’t like a gift because although it may have something divine, it is a detachment from the one who gives (forgiveness) the testimony.
Recalling the biblical Adamic myth, death, revenge and war seem natural, but it is the gift (don) and forgiveness that can turn civilization around and build peace and prosperity.
Ricoeur, P. (1967) Symbolism of Evil, Harper & Row Pub, New York: USA. (pdf)
Error and forgiveness
17
Aug
From a scientific point of view, finding errors in
methods and analyzes means changing the route and not the research hypothesis, if a hypothesis is not confirmed this is a result and not an error, in fact for Popper this is how science walks, but another thinker Thomas Kuhn argues that there are ruptures or new research hypotheses, quantum physics is an example of this.
Already in philosophy, most philosophers defend that forgiveness is a moral virtue, thus it expresses the human capacity to overcome resentment and revenge, and with this restore interpersonal and social relationships, but there are philosophers who see forgiveness as weakness or illusion, since it denies the seriousness of the evil and the responsibility of the offender.
The contemporary philosopher who dealt with forgiveness was Paul Ricoeur, who developed it without departing from the religious sense (mainly Christian) and sees it as a paradox, as it goes against the unforgivable, that is, that which cannot be repaired or compensated by justice.
The theme is relevant because Ricoeur recalls that the theme became relevant “particularly characteristic of the post-Cold War period, in which so many peoples were submitted to the difficult test of integration of traumatic memories” in a text published in Esprit, no 210 (1995) , pp. 77-82 and which can be found on the Internet or part of the Ricoeur book (1967).
The author places “forgiveness in the energetic action of a work that begins in the region of memory and continues in the region of oblivion” (Ricoeur, 1995), and that a phenomenon “that can be observed on the scale of common consciousness, of memory shared” and clarifies that he wants to avoid the debatable notation of “collective memory”.
Although written well before our time, as much the totalitarian question is at stake as the question of colonialism, and this means a “shared” memory that can lead to fury.
The philosopher uses the vocabulary of the German philosopher R. Roselleck, who opposes “our global historical consciousness”, which he calls the “space of experience” and, on the other hand, the “horizon of waiting”, if we look at our experience almost we can overcome hatred and resentment between peoples and cultures, so I consider it correct not to use “collective memory”.
It is necessary to overcome historical errors, misconceptions and paths already trodden, which led us to chaos.
Ricoeur, P. (1967) Symbolism of Evil, Harper & Row Pub, New York: USA. (pdf).
Minimum ethics: when we make a mistake
16
Aug
The discourse is very common, even I sometimes say,
that the biggest mistake is not saying no, but educating means explaining the no and helping people to correct their mistakes and listen to the counter-argument.
This implies maintaining ethics, even in the face of error, when it is common to appeal and leave for error, but what does it mean to make a mistake?
Aristotle says in his “Nicomachean Ethics” that it is possible, from a moral point of view, to make mistakes in many ways, but there is only one way to get it right: “We make mistakes when we are afraid of everything and face nothing; we err when we surrender ourselves without measure to every type of pleasure; we make mistakes when we do not return what is rightfully the other’s. On the other hand, we succeed when we avoid excesses”.
Excess can even concern what we consider virtuous, which is what concerns our dispositions: study, leisure, work in short, everything that is important, but requires balance and temperance.
Habits and addictions depend on habits, and habits depend on continuous actions, but how to correct addictions and mistakes? the practice of going straight to the point can be a mistake, every mistake must be contextualized to avoid hasty and sometimes mistaken judgment
To correct is above all to give space for the error to be understood and the reprimand already requires a social action, in many cases legal, thus it requires the proven facts, witness and the correct way of correcting, the fair measure is always the one that allows the error to be corrected. adjusted.
Fraternal correction is indicated in (MT 18, 15) it says to take your brother in private, if he listens to you he will have a brother, if he does not listen to you he takes a witness if he still does not listen to you he is a public sinner.
What has changed, there is no more correction, but only punishment and it is not always right.
Taxes, profit and tithing
15
Aug
Whenever a crisis appears on the horizon, the
most common temptation is to overload society and the issue of taxation is on the agenda not only in Brazil, but worldwide.
For benefits to be incorporated into civil life, the state needs taxes, but they should not serve as perks of the state since it is a service provided to society, and taxes incorporated into costs and prices distort and can strangle investments, savings public and private and inhibit export.
The problems in the country are enormous, the most common is double taxation (taxes on services that are already taxed, road fees for example), but governments are insatiable, they need to feed the plentiful tables of those who sustain them in power.
Profit must be thought of as having three purposes, the maintenance of social services that also serve companies, goods and social security that serve all citizens, especially workers, and the growth of the company itself and the country in investments.
Finally, the contribution to the cultural, social and religious interests of specific groups can be seen both as a society, to which everyone freely opts, and as a compulsory one, provided that there is a prior agreement for this.
The important thing is to understand that fraternal relationships, which are spontaneous, differ from obligatory ones, which imply a type of society that, once broken, the bond is lost, and this must be the case of tithing, spontaneous donation and action “between friends”.
In the philosophical field, Paul Ricoeur wrote about these relationships between partner and neighbor (Le socius et le Prochain, 1954) and
Those who doubt that this is biblical, I recommend reading Mt 17,25 when asked if they paid the temple tax: Peter replied: “Yes, pay”. Upon entering the house, Jesus came forward and asked, “Simon, what do you think: Who do the kings of the earth collect taxes or fees from: children or strangers?” to which Peter replied of the strangers, but Jesus, in order “not to offend” ordered that the taxes be paid.
The three behaviors are not far apart: dishonest profits, high tribute, and temple taxes.
Limits and importance of testimony
11
Aug
The men who gave a great turning point in history
and who made a difference in their time were those whose testimony influenced and often changed the course of history, what seemed inevitable was avoided, what seemed lost was clarified.
It doesn’t mean that they didn’t think and reason, but that they witnessed and lived first.
Mahatma Gandhi unleashed civil disobedience in his country, India, to encourage the struggle for the country’s independence from England, on August 15, 1947 it was won with violence being practiced only by the British colonizers.
Everyone knows Martin Luther King’s peaceful fight, but it was the gesture of a black woman who triggered his fight, the woman named Rosa Parks, who in Alabama, in 1st. In December 1955, she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, she was arrested and forced to pay a $14.00 bail.
Nelson Mandela after leaving prison, and leading the end of the racist regime of “apartheid”, in 1994 becomes the first black president of South Africa, instead of “taking revenge” on whites, he proposes a new attitude, contrary to of the dominators and recreates South Africa with racial tolerance and the presidents that followed him were all black, in a demonstration that won the fight and disarmed his persecutors.
There is talk of the miracle of the loaves, but the most important thing follows later in the biblical narrative in Matthew 14, 22-24, he had dismissed the crowd that had eaten the loaves, the disciples got into the boat and Jesus withdrew to pray alone, then went walking to the disciples over the sea.
The disciples are frightened by this image, they say “it is a ghost”, but He says: “it is I”, Peter also wants to walk on the water, Jesus calls him, but he sinks, weak in faith, the witness not only requires truth and experience, but also a belief and cannot be distant from it.
More than the miracle of bread that satisfies the body, Jesus wants the miracle of faith, which satisfies the soul.
Philosophy of testimony
10
Aug
The philosophy of testimony (also, epistemology
of testimony) considers the nature of language and the confluence of knowledge, which occurs when beliefs are imposed between speakers and hearers through testimony. Testimony constitutes words, gestures or statements that convey beliefs.
According to Nick (2023) what we know about the world: history, science, politics, each other, etc. comes from the testimony of other people, although it is indispensable for knowledge, specifying exactly how we are able to learn from a speaker’s opinion is a very difficult task, what I point out personally is our ability to open and listen (or read).
Still on the author, testimony is the basic source of justification, but can it be reduced to a combination of other epistemic sources, such as perception, memory and interference?
Another question is: can testimony generate knowledge or just transmit it?
It can be understood as only individual (in the sense that one’s testimonial justification depends entirely on factors related to oneself), or it must be seen as anti-individualistic (in the sense that one’s testimonial justification depends on one, at least in part , from factors that have to do with yourself) ?
How to understand the testimony between an expert and a new one?
Do groups witness? And if so, how can we learn from the opinion of a group?
What is the testimony itself? (since it is not to be confused with narrative, but with experience).
In his work, the author clarified that these are not the only questions, citing other authors such as M. Fricker (2007) who takes the issue of crediting testimonies that gave rise to an epistemic injustice, there are also interesting questions regarding eyewitness testimony and the law (Wells & Olson, 2003) and (Burrogghs & Tollefsen, 2016), as well as witness and affirmation (Pagin, 2007 [2016]).
There is also what he considers particularly important, which is a growing literature on moral and aesthetic testimony, and the author gives the example of the opinion of a friend who believes that eating roast beef is morally wrong because only his friend tells him so.
However, the author focuses on the issues mentioned above.
The witness must therefore be a leaven of truth and have experience in order to be credible.
Burroughs, Michael D. and Deborah Tollefsen, (2016), “Learning to Listen: Epistemic Injustice and the Child”, Episteme, 13(3): 359–377.
Fricker, Miranda, (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Pagin, Peter, (2007 [2016]), “Assertion”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/assertion/>
Wells, Gary L. and Elizabeth A. Olson, (2003), “Eyewitness Testimony”, Annual Review of Psychology, 54: 277–295. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
Testimonies and humanism
09
Aug
True humanism is what allows the evolution
of the civilizing process, preserving what is essential that every man has, which is his Being, this goes beyond the conditions of economic, social and political survival, he must include the Other and give this testimony.
Testimonies range from cases in which someone needs information and turns to someone or some epistemic means (organized knowledge) to new scientific reports that reveal the most intricate mysteries of life and the universe.
Epistemologists agree on the importance of testimony as a source of justification, along with perception (cognitive and beyond), memory (all means of information and dissemination) and reasoning (beyond the logical, physical and metaphysical), The divergence lies in how falsely justified testimonial beliefs can arise from justified beliefs.
This is due to the fact that not only beliefs considered in the religious aspect, but also them, but the fact that it is possible that testimonial beliefs involving perception, memory and cognition (my addition) are reliable from previously justified beliefs, this is the current called reductionist, because regardless of the testimony, it is already justified.
Anti-reductionists argue that the justification of testimonial beliefs is straightforward: we are justified in believing something simply because someone testifies to something even though there are no reasons not to do so, there are different tentative responses to this debate.
Outside of this epistemic debate, we must think that we live in a time when it is difficult to think and organize information in order to reach the testimony as a source of truth, one can defend peace even by making war, one can defend democracy by limiting the civil rights and divergent ideas, justice can be defined by changing the rules of law to give rise to injustice, one can proclaim a belief even while limiting oneself to a partial practice.
Thus, what is at stake is not the testimony of beliefs, but often their own denial, and it can be a matter not just of bad faith or ill will, but of difficulty in cognition, which is why I made this addition to perception and memory, where the problem is the source of information.
A true humanism must presuppose testimony, otherwise we do not have a reliable reference for our arguments, dialogues and overcoming disagreements.
We can only test our way of life if we live up to what we witness.
Referência:
Leonard, Nick, “Epistemological Problems of Testimony”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/testimony-episprob/ , 2021.
The moral decay of the state and trust
08
Aug
The most serious social crisis in our state
is that even being democratically elected, elected officials such as deputies, senators, mayors and the highest representatives of countries are not worthy of credulity and respect and this sometimes explodes beyond what is moral.
Trust as an epistemological concept, which can give credibility to the term, is essential if we think about social, family life or friendship circles, but there is no consensus on a reliable definition, not wanting to make a redundancy.
If we read scholars we see that they felt the need to verify the origins of the concept, in the search to better understand its use in areas of knowledge where there is an epistemological arrangement that helps this clarification.
A pioneering work on the subject was developed by David Hume, who from the historical reasons regarding the role of testimony in the justification of beliefs, which ended up being known as Testimony Epistemology.
Who imagines that this is an outdated subject and has little or nothing to say to current thought, I quote the thought of Giogio Agamben in an interview in Il Manifesto, in which he said? “Against this testimonial experience of myth stands the myth conception of modernity, which (in the form of the demythologizing and science of myth on the one hand and the search for a ‘new mythology’ on the other) is actually only the shadow produced by Enlightenment reason” (reproduced in Flanagens, on 06-14-2021), said the octogenarian Italian philosopher.
Both in oral and written culture, testimony is important, but a question arises for today: why do we trust, if not in all, at least in many testimonies?
In the history of epistemology, testimony as a source of true beliefs has been relegated to the background or disallowed in philosophical conduct, because the current tradition of epistemology is strongly individualistic.
The social aspect of knowledge acquisition, therefore, was not part of the knowledge problem. But it is not difficult to demonstrate our epistemic dependence on others for the acquisition of true beliefs.
It is not possible to restore trust without a true Testimony Epistemology.
