Arquivo para a ‘Linguagens’ Categoria
The eschatological infinity
26
Nov
Transcendence as an idea of the Infinite can be understood in
Lévinas’ philosophy as “The presence of a being that does not enter the sphere of the Same, a presence that exceeds it, fixes its’ status” of infinity, this is how the idea will appear in Lévinas of Foreigner and there he in his own eschatology.
The term Foreigner is typical of the biblical tradition from which Emmanuel Lévinas feeds, as many feed on Greek mythology, it is present in the fourfold prophet Isaiah, a prophet as in the mode of the celebrated Greek poets Homer and Hesiod, is curious because it can if Lévinas’s part sees a convergence between Hellenic and Semitic culture, contrary to all fury against Judeo-Christian culture.
The quadratics are as follows: the poor (who have no economic resources), the widow (who has no husband to support her), the orphan (who has no shelter to collect him), the foreigner (who has no country to step on) . they are the synthesis of what we now call and excluded in biblical times, and we can see in a new “philosophical” eschatology by Lévinas the idea of an eschatological “end” not as the end of time, but the end of poverty, of female helplessness (today more serious is femicide), the organs of wars and foreigners who walk around the world and which Bauman comes to irony (amazement) and then a new apocalypse.
It is thus that the infinite and the being-for-death can also have an eschatological interpretation, without any prejudice or presumption to the religious sense that may at some point occur, and from which the planet is not exempt, after all an eschatological end present in many non-Christian religions is what the earth itself (the mother-earth) rebels against, again a convergence with biblical prophecies.
The big reason why this idea was almost abolished in modernity, Leibniz already claimed it, is said by Lévinas: “My life and history do not form totality. The common that allows us to speak of objectified society, and by which man resembles the thing and individualizes himself as a thing, is not first ”(in Ethics and Infinite), and Lévinas will define this process as“ infinity ”(perhaps a better translation would be infinitation, but they did not translate this way), an inversion of modern subjectivity, because the subject is subjecting himself to Other, and thus lives his personal “in process” eschatology, subject to the Infinite.
On the social scale it is the foreigner, the poor and the one who suffers some kind of prejudice (the racist, for example, but there are others including the religious) and with this we are heading towards an authentic eschatological end, an apocalypse of the current world without brake and without a safe direction for all humanity.
Infinity as an eschatological complement
25
Nov
Every eschatology has a beginning and an end, it is a mistake to
imagine it only with what will happen at the end of time, the Christian apocalypse or al-dain of the Islamists, which is not in the Koran, but in the sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad,it must be thought of in the process.
In philosophy, the idea of the infinite permeates the eschatology that I call complete because it admits an end like that which Lévinas wrote in Totality and Infinite as the metaphysical desire to tend towards something totally different, the absolutely other, note that it is not God, because it is not theology, but the change that is possible to another metaphysical state, after all the subtitle of the book is “Essai sur l´extériorité”, and exteriority has something essential there.
For Lévinas the idea of the infinite is one that refers to the different and the distinct, says Enrique Dussel that Lévinas when saying different and distinct, affirms that the different occurs in the Totality and the distinct occurs in the Proximity, outside of this we remain in pure idealism of the transcendence of the Subject to the Object.
In the words of Lévinas: “Metaphysical desire tends towards something totally different, towards something else … On the basis of the commonly interpreted desire, there would be the need (bésoin): the desire would mark an indigent and incomplete or fallen being. its past greatness. It would coincide with the consciousness of what was lost”, Its eschatological end is this then, the fallen being of its past greatness and with awareness of what was lost.
This is also where his ethics lies, after all for Lévinas it is called metaphysics because it refers to the transcendence of others, which is not merely physical and the indicative of this transcendence is the idea of the infinite, that which occurs in the face to face, which is therefore the distinct found in Proximity.
It is this proximity to the “face to face” that is primordial in Lévinas, it is the original experience of the inter-human, here I relate it with the cultural origin where there is the identity of the inter-human, that is, of a human a posteriori in function from an a priori, it is in this sense that I consider original cultures.
The original experience is that of someone’s ethical closeness, of a relationship without a mask, and thus anthropology and ontology meet, in Lévinas’s words (I know that the point of view is different) “morality is not a branch of philosophy, but the first philosophy ”, that would be a balanced civilization.
The relation with the being-to-death that I see with this infinite, is that one does not think from the finite, just like death not through the negation of life, this was for Kant for whom the notion of infinity is opposed as an ideal of reason, Hegel modified but placed the positivity of the infinite, excluding diversity.
The infinite is diverse because it starts from the Other, from the other thing, and also the totally other, so its eschatology is complete, the being-for-death and the infinite merge (of course neither Heidegger nor Lévinas say it) because they are in the beyond self and in the beyond life containing it entirely.
Our conscience will one day be charged
20
Nov
It is not necessary to be religious to realize that one day, even
in the face of death, we will think about what our life was like, how we treat the poor, all those close to us, nature and respect for the privacy of others, in short to everything that preserves life, and water is the origin of life, and there is no life if there is no Other who are not those who are so close, but also those who are distant or not from our circle.
Certainly we will have in mind someday about what we did and what we left as an inheritance for people who want us good or bad, it doesn’t matter, everyone will be facing their own conscience, and as phenomenology says conscience is awareness of something, what is this something in front of life. What are these essentials to life: hunger, thirst, homelessness and outrage to each person, it can be said that it is the invasion of privacy, the excess of public explosion, which Byung Chul Han calls narcissism, in addition to the various types of abuse, they are all a kind of nudity.
The lack of drinking water for around 500 million people, but also the lack of public policies on basic sanitation that affects another half billion people, makes the water problem a vital problem for many people on the planet.
Those who believe the final exam in which all will be charged before God are described by the evangelist Matthew as those who will be called to participate in the Kingdom of God (Mt 25: 35-39): “Because I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: because I was thirsty and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you stayed with me: I was naked, and you dressed me, sick, and you visited me: in prison, and you went to see me. Then they will ask the righteous: Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and we gave you a drink? And when did we see you as a stranger and host you? Or naked and do we dress you? ”, and the answer will be everything we did to the little ones, you did to me.
The cruelty that remains even in pandemic times, when they do not even grow, makes the civilizing environment dangerous and worrying.
Eroticism in times of crisis
18
Nov
The subject is difficult when it does not deviate towards general liberalism,
defense of the erotic at any price or “freedom of the body”, but what happens is that among the various civilizing crises, human love is also in crisis.
I find little literature exists about it that does not go to laisses faire or to unhealthy moralism, what happens is that, recognizes the philosopher Byung Chul Han, we live The agony of eros, the inability to love, and in the diagnosis of the Korean philosopher- German, we are destroying relationships based on the erosion of the Other, which affects all areas of life and goes hand in hand with a “sick narcissism” that invades our lives.
He writes his most profound diagnosis: “The fact that the other person disappears is a dramatic process, but it fatally advances, in a sneaky and barely noticeable way”, an indication is the number of selfies where people try to show their different faces, without choosing a situation and anywhere.
If we do not recognize the other person as an “other”, we become unable to love, and thus to reach a living and liberating experience of love, it is liberating even from ourselves, from our frustrations and inconsistencies, summarizes Han is the other who saves us from ourselves.
In times of crisis, love, affection and true interest in the Other is what can make the crisis less serious, if we are living the opposite, more selfishness, more narcissism and more competition (Han argues as the society of efficiency and appeal success) means more crisis and less eroticism.
There is no way to develop love and joy around these situations, even those who have a love relationship suffer the consequences of the violent environment and calls for attitudes contrary to love and affection, even friendly relationships that require empathy are at stake .
I also make a reflection beyond Han, because precisely the society that most exalts eroticism suffers from his agony, perhaps what we see as erotic goes beyond the limits of privacy, of some modesty and of respect for the limits of the Other and of the body itself.
The discourse of respect is not outdated, after all, what are the frightening numbers of domestic violence of all kinds, but the absence of respect, André Groz’s “Inside and Outside” (1929) image gives interesting outlines on the connection aspect of eroticism with a lack of sensitivity;
Healthy living and talents
13
Nov
A society of tiredness, fear and authoritarian pressure can stifle 
talents, hide natural gifts that all people have, and that developing them depends on special care such as giving time, space and having sensitivity for them to develop.
Another serious problem is the social demand for efficiency and the pressure for results, they will come naturally if there is room for learning, growth and respect for cultural and social differences, from cultivation in the family, through education and social structure, only gifts will be developed when these structures are prepared to support individual talent. From a personal point of view, it is often necessary to overcome feelings of inferiority, talk and seek support from specialists and social sectors who can develop the aptitude they have, who often need to deepen their vocations and cultivate the gifts they have until they express themselves as a talent.
All the sociological work of Marcel Mauss, in his Theory of the Gift, is to demonstrate that it is not always useful, the simple exchange for financial advantages that in many societies transform cultural and social gifts into healthy social structures where those talents that naturally develop each person has, the issue of exchange and reciprocity are studied in some ancient cultures.
By studying non-European cultures, the gift in the virtuous cycle of giving-receiving-returning, Mauss helped to deconstruct European universalism, and can be considered one of the sources of studies of decolonization.
In his essay, the anthropologist and sociologist Maus, very early realized this challenge of bringing together a discussion about the relationship between decolonial criticism and anti-utilitarian criticism as his vision of the “gift”. In studying non-Western cultures, Mauss seeks to demonstrate the healthy and “universal” value of the gift system, in the form of the give-take-return cycle, that existed before the emergence of the market and the State and continues to exist, despite the dominant utilitarian ideology that seeks to emphasize the selfishness and commercialism of the talents.
The biblical parable of the talents, where a man when traveling abroad delivers his goods to his employees, giving “talents”, although this means a financial value the analogy with the individual talents is clear in the text, says the reading Lk 25,14- 15: “A man was going to travel abroad. He called his employees and gave them their goods”.
One gave five talents, the other gave two talents and the third gave one; each according to their ability.
Then he traveled ”, and the parable states that the one who received five doubled his talent, while the one who received one buried it to return when the boss returned.
So it is not a question of egalitarianism, but of a free distribution of gifts and how each one works his talents, in a healthy context in the case of the parable the man “goes abroad”, that is, each one can work his talent as he received, and when he comes back he gives a greater reward to the one who worked the talents he received the most, but everyone receives some “value” in talents and has the opportunity to develop, it is also clear that in this context it is the ability of each one to receive and return talents, as Mauss completes the act of “giving”, creating a virtuous cycle.
Affliction and anguish
29
Oct
Those who have read The Being and Time attentively know that one of Heidegger’s important responses is what should be read in Kierkgaard were quick to witness the celebrated response of a thinker considered to be one of the most eminent philosophers of contemporary times.
It is, therefore, Heidegger himself who Kierkegaard separating him into so-called “edifying” teachings that would be more important than “theoretical” ones, except in one case that is anguish, in his treatise The concept of anguish, and that the “the forest philosopher” is keen to say that “from an ontological point of view” it remains “entirely tributary to Hegel and ancient philosophy seen through him”. (HEIDEGGER, 2012, p. 651, n. 6).
What Heidegger saw in this 1844 book, whose authorship is attributed to Vigilius Haufniensis, a Kierkegaardian pseudonym that translates as “Copenhagen Watcher”, since Kierkegaard was Danish and his first intention is to return Socratic wisdom, which for him contemplative knowledge (theory) with practical knowledge (phrónesis), the way of ancient Greek.
Although he called Socrates a “practical philosopher, he just wanted to focus the“ anguish ”dressing on the experience of what was reflected by the soul and this meant an approximation of psychology, it was“ the doctrine of the subjective spirit ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 25), was one of the branches of Philosophy, and of a really dialectical philosophy in the Greek-Socratic sense since modern philosophy has fixed itself on the Kantian dualism thesis versus antithesis with an improbable synthesis.
The philosopher uses the expression “hereditary sin”, used by the author throughout the work, but as the one that corresponds to what theologians, called by him “dogmatic”, call the original sin, nomenclature apart, is the aspect that brings his theme closer to the anguish of that “soul” affliction, which can have a philosophical and psychological outline, but which is basically that affliction of those who feel outside a center, from a clear perspective of overcoming anguish.
What leads existence to a singular way, to a way of acting in such a way? This is where the notions of freedom and anguish emerge as “concepts” converge to this “anguish”, but without having a locus, neither in Aesthetics, in Metaphysics or even in Psychology, so the author does not say so, but there is something afflicted and tragic in this journey in this “anguish”.
Paul Ricoeur, reflecting on these expressions of Kierkegaard, establishes that evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason, recalls Ricoeur (1996, p. 16), referring to the Kierkegaardian reflections, evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason.
Ricoeur thus differentiates structural evil (we have already made a post), linked to anguish and sin and free will linked to personal decisions in the face of anguish.
The point that I consider essential in Kierkegaard’s thought on this existential aspect is that “only what has crossed the anguish of possibility, only this one is fully trained not to be distressed, not because it evades the horrors of life, but because they always become weak compared to those of possibility ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 165-166), it is here that affliction can find its opposite and we can understand that there is a source of comfort in it.
Thus anguish and affliction are not exactly curses or sinful states or diseases of the “soul” or thoughts, they are phases of rupture or transition to other more mature phases when this stage involves reflection and overcoming.
HEIDEGGER, Martin (1957) Ser e tempo. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2012. (Multilíngues de Filosofia Unicamp). JOLIVET, Régis. As doutrinas existencialistas: de Kierkegaard a Sartre. Portugal, Porto: Tavares Martins.
KIERKEGAARD, Sören (2010). O conceito de angústia: uma simples reflexão psicológico-demonstrativa direcionada ao problema dogmático do pecado hereditário de Vigilius Haufniensis. Tradução e notas Álvaro Luiz Montenegro Valls. 2. ed. Brazil, Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Happiness in Thomas Aquinas
28
Oct
To analyze beatitude, which we have already explained that is
also an ancient Greek theme for happiness, Thomas Aquinas learned from the Greek philosopher to distinguish between two different forms of happiness: the natural riches that are those by which man is helped to compensate for natural deficiencies such as food, drink, clothing, housing, etc., and artificial ones that do not help nature but subject it, like money, but human art invented to facilitate exchanges, so that they were like measures for venial things, and influenced by Boethius will question whether wealth is in fact the one that gives all goods:
“Bliss is the perfect state where all goods come together.” Now, it seems that through money you can acquire all things, because the Philosopher, in book V of Ethics, money was invented to be the guarantee of everything that man wanted to possess. Therefore, bliss consists of riches ”(Thomas Aquinas, theological suma. Part III).
Even with the possession of a broader idea of wealth, the natural wealth that Aristotle predicted, and artificial wealth as well, in none of them will Aquinate recognize it as a source of happiness, because it has no end in itself, and people who own them make it the ultimate end, it becomes a bond for something.
And what value this bond can have in itself, Tomás de Aquino examines honor, and says in this sense: “it is impossible for the beatitude to consist of honor. The honor is rendered to someone due to some excellence: and thus, it is a sign and testimony of that excellence that is in the honored one ”, it can also be the fame or glory, the power, and the goods of the body, but all these goods in themselves they also do not translate into happiness, but only false knowledge.
That is how bliss is itself, she says verbatim:” bliss is the most stable of goods “, so the lack of stability of fame occurs due to the fact that it derives exclusively from human knowledge, which, in turn, instead, it is limited, and it is often even false.
Similarly, Boethius argued: “human power cannot avoid the torment of worries, nor the sting of fear”.
As for the body, argues the Christian philosopher: “, the beatitude of man is superior in every way to that of animals, although many animals surpass men in the goods of the body”, so if beatitude comes from there, man would be equaling to animals, and how often this is true.
But what then is happiness for Doctor Angelico, who asks the same question as Boethius: “‘ Is it necessary to confess that God is the beatitude itself? ” and he will conclude that “the beatitude is the last end, towards which the human will naturally tends” and “for nothing else must the will tend as for the last end, except for God, for it must be the object of I enjoy, as Agostinho says ”(AQUINO, 2003, p. 62).
Here you can have a synthesis of what happiness is for the three great Christian thinkers of the medieval period.
For some authors, like Luiz Alberto De Boni, the philosophy of Tomás de Aquino along these lines: “the good and the end are identified”, thus has an eschatology, and if we understand that the end is just this earthly life limited to a temporal period his argument is not valid, but if we admit eternity, happiness as the ultimate good is that which we have already achieved here but which must extend beyond temporal life, outside of this, of course, only temporal pleasures.
In Picture above, by an anonymous author, The rich man and Lazarus, (around 1610, Amsterdam).
AQUINO, Tomás (2003). Theological summula. V. III. Brazil, São Paulo: Loyola.
Bliss and beatitude
27
Oct
Although the term is associated with Christian holiness, and is also one of its aspects, the term in classical antiquity had a more generic meaning, a permanent state of perfect satisfaction and fullness that only a wise man could achieve, so thought Aristotle, but today it is conditioned only to the religious sense, it is intended here to show that they can be closer than we think.
The religious meaning is also that of happiness, but in the sense of joy of balanced pleasure of the soul, which can only reach those who enjoy the presence of God, that its fullness can be achieved only in eternal life, but does not mean discarding earthly life, 
“I have come that everyone may have life, and life in abundance” (John 10:10), so proclaims the evangelist, but what is different between the two proposals for happiness.
Aristotle in the book “Of the causes” will say that the end of beatitude is relative to its desire, so the ultimate nature of this end moves mainly by desire and this is pleasure, so much so that it absorbs man’s will and reason to the point of make other goods despise.
Both Boethius, that the church also beatified him (that is, he proclaimed him happy, blessed and holy), and Aristotle dealt with the theme, and their question is what if pleasure is really the ultimate end of happiness, of beatitude and that it also Tomás de Aquino will argue the contrary.
What Boethius says is that the consequences of pleasures are sad, all those who want to remember their sensualities know it, because, if these could make them happy, there would be no reason why the brutes too would not be considered such, and this is very reminiscent of current cases of abuse and objectionable violence.
For Boethius: “The beatitude is the perfect state of the union of all goods”, and so it seems that through money you can acquire all things, because the Philosopher, in book V of Ethics, says that money was invented for to be the guarantor of everything that man wanted to possess, which today can be translated as money buys everything.
In addition, Boethius also says: “Riches shine more when they are distributed than when they are conserved. For this reason, greed makes men hateful, generosity makes them illustrious ”, and so wealth is not condemned, but its bad distribution.
In the representation above the painting “The cheerful violinist with a glass of wine” (1624) by Gerard van Honthorst (1590-1656).
What makes love loved
23
Oct
Hannah Arendt sought in Augustine of Hippo for her answers to Love,
brought great contributions in the philosophical field to the theme, far beyond the classic division of the Greeks: agape, eros and filia; but as the contemporary philosopher Julia Kristeva observed, she went no further than the philosopher Augustine, for there is also the theologian.
In addition to the intelligent division of her doctoral thesis: “Love in Saint Augustine”, Arendt herself emphasized the philosophical character of the work of the Bishop of Hipona, by emphasizing: “he never completely lost the impulse of philosophical questioning” (Arendt, 1996), his bases of Cicero, Plato and Plotinus are noticeable in his work.
Arendt’s choice to divide his dissertation into three parts is due to a willingness to do justice to Augustinian thoughts and theories that run in parallel. So each part “will serve to show three conceptual contexts in which the problem of love plays a decisive role.”
She also realizes the importance of Amor Caritas, but as she sees it is not theological, but only within human possibilities, Julia Kristeva when talking about Love goes further by stating: “love is the time and space in which ´I´ give myself the right to be extraordinary“, while Arendt is clear that there is a difference between Caritas and Cupiditas, who loves the world, the things of the world.
But the question of Augustine that must also be answered by Christians is what “do I love when I love my God?” (Confessions X, 7, 11 apud Arendt p. 25), the fifth essence of my interior, it is true as Augustine thought that I find in me what connects me to eternity, but there is beyond the fifth essence or Other outside, not just God , but that Other that passes by me, the one whose identity is hidden in the human envelope of the Other that has God in him too.
What I love when I love God, is thus extended to Love humanity, concrete in each Other that I relate to, and is beyond the fifth essence of my “I”.
So Caritas is the extraordinary in me, both Arendt, Kristeva and Augustine himself are right in part, but the God I love is now also present in the Other, which is beyond my mirror and beyond my inner essence.
Perhaps the biggest trap made for Jesus by the Pharisees is in the question, after Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, it was in the question (Mt 22,36) “Master, what is the greatest commandment of the Law?”, And Jesus will answer (Mt 22, 37-39): “Jesus replied:“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your understanding!’ That is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is similar to this: ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’ ”, and concludes that this is the synthesis of the entire Law and of the prophets.
Hannah Arendt quotes this passage, but the sequence is clear you will love with all courage and soul, theological aspects and then with understanding, the philosophical.
However, the updated question is this of Augustine: “What do I love when I say that I love God?” and if the answer is also “The neighbor as yourself”, that is, with its inner essence directed to the Other, it means that I cannot say that I really love Love, which comes from God, if it is not the Love caritas.
Arendt, Hannah. (1996) Love and Saint Augustine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Figure: Textures and acrylic on canvas. January, 2018. Eva-sas Gallery.
Still love in Saint Augustine
22
Oct
What made Hannah Arendt conclude that a Civilization of Love was
not possible, in addition to her personal experience as a Jew who would not return to her “home” in Israel, she still had to make plans for this, is the misunderstanding of Caritas Agápico , the true love.
Philosopher Julia Kristeva released a reserved report by advisor Karl Jaspers about her advisor Hannah Arendt, it seemed to her that her student that her student at the time “[…] was able to underline the essentials, but that she simply did not meet everything Augustine said about love. […] Some errors appear in the quotes. […] The method exerts some violence on the text. […] The author wants, through a philosophical work of ideas, to justify her freedom in relation to Christian possibilities, which, however, attract her. […] Unfortunately, it does not deserve the highest mention [cum laude]. Indeed, Arendt seems to favor, in Augustine, the philosopher, to the detriment of the theologian. ” (KRISTEVA, 2002, p. 41).
Philosopher Kristeva points out the essential point by going deeper into Augustine’s thought, and asks what kind of love the philosopher referred to and whether there was more than one type of love, in addition to the already known filia, agape and Eros: “Numerous terms decline the concept of love in Augustine: love, desire (with its two variants, appetitus and libido), charity, lust, forming a true ‘constellation of love’ (…) ”. (KRISTEVA, 2002, p. 42).
What was revolutionary about Augustine’s strong Christian message, in addition to his intellectual and theological capacity, was the notion of liberation from ancient laws, which some incorrectly call legalism (these are not “human” laws), centering on love the basis of religion was possible to overcome Augustine’s previous affiliation with Manichaean dualism, to which a good part of theology and philosophy are still attached, the latter but more linked to current rational-idealism.
It will be impossible to think of a civilization that overcomes hatred, violence and the dualistic division of society without true charity, one that extends to all, one that admits diversity, and one that seeks justice, as Augustine thought: “where there is no charity there can be no justice ”, and thus the greatest desire for justice must be based on charity, even if it seems too altruistic, or mushy, just look at what hatred has built but wars and violence.
The set of volumes of Julia Kristeva’s “Female Genius” (1941-) is to analyze and pay tribute to three thinkers of the 20th century, perhaps the best known Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), Melanie Klein (1882-1960) and Colette (1873-1954).
Julia Kristeva is considered a structuralist (or post), along with Gérard Genette, Lévi Strauss, Jacques: Marie Lacan, Michel Foucault and Althusser, she also has an important work on semiotics. as a mosaic of quotations ”(Kristeva, 2005, p. 68) and also:“ The text does not name or determine an exterior ”(KRISTEVA, 2005, p. 12), thus stating that literature does not account for the real.
KRISTEVA, Julia (2002). O genio feminino. The female genius: life, madness and words. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
KRISTEVA, Julia (2005) Introdução à semanálise. Introduction to semanysis. Translation by Lúcia Helena França Ferraz. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
