Arquivo para a ‘Linguagens’ Categoria
Love in Saint Augustine
20
Oct
This was Hannah Arendt’s doctoral thesis with direct influences
from Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, initially his supervisor, who later passed the guidance to Karl Jaspers due to his personal involvement with Arendt, so some understanding of phenomenology and existential ontology is needed.
We ended last week with a reflection on politics and religion precisely from the compilation of Posthumous Works by Arendt herself, and what we want to point out is the possibility of a civilization based on the principles of Love, in the sense of charity (theological virtue) and as Augustine saw it.
Far from being an apology for this elevated form of Love, it sees contradictions and will develop the question of love for God, love for one’s neighbor and oneself, and uses phenomenology to deepen this theme, but it is a hasty conclusion to say that phenomenology opposes or even favors these feelings, which in themselves are rather contradictory, for example, love for one’s neighbor and oneself has different nuances for the vast majority of people.
His conclusion is that it is not possible to form a human society based only on charitable love (always remembering that it is a theological virtue and not simple generosity) and the central point is to analyze Augustine only from a philosophical point of view, since Arendt he had no interest in the theological aspects.
Arendt for dividing his dissertation into three parts is due to a desire to do justice to Augustinian thoughts and theories that run in parallel. Thus, each part “will serve to show three conceptual contexts in which the problem of love plays a decisive role” (this quote is taken from an English translation that Hannah Arendt herself works with and differs from Portuguese).
The first part Arendt will analyze “What do I love, when I love my God?” (Confessions X, 7, 11 apud Arendt p. 25), in the second part she discusses the relationship between the creature and the creator, she titled the chapter “Creature and Creator: the remembered past”, and in the third part she discusses social charity.
In the first part, the author discovers that God is the quintessence of his inner self, God is the essence of his existence, and when he finds God in himself, man finds what he lacked: his eternal essence. Here, love for God can relate to self-love, for man can love himself in the right way by loving his own essence.
In the end, the second part will discuss the relationship with others, how to love them as God’s creation: “[…] man loves the world as God’s creation; in the world the creature loves the world as God loves. This is the realization of a self-denial in which everyone, including yourself, simultaneously regains its God-given importance. This achievement is love of neighbor. ”
In the third part of the dissertation, entitled “Social Life”, which Arendt dedicates to what she calls “social caritas”, the relevance of the neighbor, and the love for neighbor gain new justification, will discuss the adamic principle of sin and will say that this is the principle that will link us to Christ, who comes to redeem us from this sin.
Here the contradiction with Augustine appears: “It is because all men share this past that they must love each other:“ the reason why one must love one’s neighbor is because their neighbor is fundamentally their equal and both share the same sinful past ”, so it is not the foundation of Love, but of sin that makes us equal to others nearby. ”
By choice, man must deny the world and found a new society in Christ. “This defense is the foundation of the new city, the city of God. […] This new social life, which is based on Christ, is defined by mutual love (diligire invicem) ”, there is a work by Augustine dedicated to this:“ city of God ”, and the thesis that is only so philosophical it focuses only on the mundane (or human, as you wish) relationship, it does not see man as having a divine origin and made for Love.
For Arendt what makes us brothers and I can love them in caritas, in true love, and this is expressed in Augustine, according to Arendt, reconciles the isolation generated by the commandment to love God with the commandment that says to love your neighbor, ending the dissertation.
According to Kurt Blumenfeld, a friend of Arendt who had great importance in his involvement with Judaism and politics, the answer to the question was Zionism and a return to Palestine, but emigration there was never part of Arendt’s plans. vita socialis your answer about Love, did not understand caritas.
Arendt, Hannah. (1929) On the concept of love in the thought of Saint Augustine: Attempt at a philosophical interpretation] (PDF) (Doctoral thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Heidelberg) (in German). Berlin: Springer.
Plato’s banquet
06
Oct
At banquets, tables and food sharing celebrate many things,
including dialogue on essential topics.
Occurring around 380 BC it is a dialogue, and there are some who prefer the translation of Greek as Symposium (in ancient Greek sympotein means “to drink together”), and the central theme is Love, between eros and agape, and the central character as in most of his dialogues are Socrates.
Also in the dialogue Aristophanes and Ágaton (or Agatão), in his house there had been a previous banquet in celebration of the literary prize he had won, in this banquet Socrates and other participants spoke about “love”, Apolodoro and Glaucon, Aristodemo and Agaton himself.
Glaucon considers Apolodoro as crazy because he despises the material, Ágaton means “good” in Greek, good things and love lead to the practice of good and beautiful, and if we knew the practice of love the good it does, men would make an army of lovers, reminiscent of the army of banos, whose front was Pelopidas and Epaminondas in 371 BC
Phaedrus’ speech is that the love worshiped by men reveals them to be more virtuous and happier during life and after death, but it is in cosmogony that the speeches will oppose, while Phaedrus sees the origin of Eros as a very ancient god, without mention of parents, he was born next to Geia (land) after Chaos.
Pausanias the second to speak, contrary to Phaedrus, there are several Eros, he was the son of Aphrodite, and two Aphrodites, a daughter of Uranus and another of Zeus, that of Zeus generates vulgar eros and that of Uranus a heavenly Eros.
Eriximaco approves the distinction of Pausânias on the duplicity of Love and, universalist, extends it to every cosmos: “great and admirable, and it extends to everything, both in the order of human and divine things”, being a doctor says that the love and concord provide harmony, combining opposites (the healthy and the morbid) that extend throughout the universe: “one must keep one love and the other…”.
Aristophanes will insist on the power that love has over historical nature, using the myth of the androgens, legitimizing homo-affection and the unbridled search for what we now call “soul mates”, which is a search for perfectionism and in a way narcissism . Socrates praises the fact that Agaton began to show nature and what are the works of Love, but then follows his classic Question method: “Is Love such that it is Love of something or nothing?”, Ágaton confirms that Love is Love of something. Which “something” is Love from and continues with the question: “Does Love, what it is love, does it want it or not?” and the banquet follows the fashion of the Greek classics.
The banquet, the table at which everyone sits is the important part of this dialogue, seems so classic and so present, but we would add a question and Francisco de Assis, remembered these days, he said with conviction: “Love is not loved”, so before to be an instrument as stated by Agaton is itself something to be used as an instrument, at a time of so much pain in humanity, or else the Socratic way of asking: “Is Love loved?”
Plato, (2003). The Symposium, trans. by Christopher Gill. London: Penguin.
Error, cholera and thymós
09
Sep
Just as scientific error is assumed to be part of scientific research,
errors in human and social relationships should not lead to disruption and the return to connection between people or groups will inevitably involve some type of forgiveness.
It is often possible that the error is not assumed, but implied, this is because, we justify the path we take and make considerations about our lack and end up not assuming it, but the return should always be tried once forgiveness sana, and allows the dialogue to move forward.
Peter Sloterdijk wrote about the “timotic” situation of our time, Thymós is at the base of Plato’s theory to designate the “organs” from which the impulses, the excitations, the most inflamed affections are born, it seems something present in our time and so its book Ira e Tempo (Cholera and Time, in Portuguese translation by the publisher Relógio d´Água).
The preferred subject could not be anything other than politics, it is undoubtedly the pole of catalyzing hatreds and grudges, where forgiveness and dialogue seem to be increasingly a distant point that will never be reached, and the reverse of this is …
These impulses cross not only social networks, they pass through political journalism and polarize between parties, people and social groups, what Sloterdijk does in the form of “analysis” is that there is a state of proliferation (attention, it’s not what Byung Chul Han will call it psychopolitics, or the old “mass politics”), we have already drawn attention to Karl Kraus, who in his time between wars, drew attention to the discourse of the press and intellectuals.
In one of his comedies, “Walpurgis’ third night”, he said that “about Hitler nothing comes to my mind”, it is logical that he did not ignore the danger of that speech, but he warned journalists and writers who insisted on just mocking and he said that the media seemed to like the indignant but impotent citizen, so it has the opposite effect of the desired one.
An analytical look at the psychopolitics that Chul Han does is not dispensable, even though we are equipped with little knowledge on this matter, it would verify that the state of high tymotic tension, established by the media to guarantee the success of individuals who are charged with “ thymós ”, leads us to an endless (apparent) civil war.
It is as if all anger finds its “political economy” only in what Sloterdijk calls “rational” cynicism, a kind of “world bank of anger” that catalyzes, not by chance, opposite sides of the current polarization. Just look at politicians of different trends to see how attached they are to this trend, so resentment and legitimation of crimes make popular indignation impotent, claiming appetite and becoming a blank slate for any conversation, even if it comes from one. liberating feeling that should point to the new.
The absence of forgiveness or at least tolerance, makes violence and false radicalism visible and hides impotence.
SLOTERDIJK, P. (2012) Rage and Time – A Psychopolitical Investigation. USA: Columbia University Press.
Art, split and unity
03
Sep
Hölderlin, a German poet cited and praised by Heidegger, also
maintained intimacy with philosophy, in one of his little-known writings he contested the “absolute self”, but it is also necessary to question a precise “we” to a bubble, to a hierarchical world and stylized, in the poet’s perspective, consciousness without an object would be inconceivable and every judgment presupposes the world, which is very close to the awareness of something that phenomenology proposes.
The theoretical principles of a philosophy of history, very close to the view of Gadamer’s historical consciousness, were developed as divided into three periods: the unity, the split and the recovery of nature (in the form of the naturalness of art), however Hölderlin treated also from the aortic, and one could think of the real recovery of nature, in pandemic times it seems to breathe: fish, birds and animals reappear, the air is lighter and it seems that nature is grateful.
The split, which causes man to face so many contradictions and inequalities, is also said Rousseau, a condition of freedom, however when faced with indignities and injustices this condition seems to be threatened, the poet used poetry as a “Harmonic opposition” between the self and the world, but it claims a third, poetic and harmonic in which the world of texts inhabits, as Roland Barthes supposed, says in his poetry Half of Life:
Where is it winter, find the flowers, and where the sunlight and the shadows of the earth? ”
In the end, only “walls and flags in the wind” remain
The poem itself is half that cannot be completed without the reader and the world.
It is also uncertainty, according to beautiful image of the “song of the destiny of Hyperion”:
“Like water from cliff to cliff, poured incessantly into the uncertain”.
Hyperion’s destiny song says:
You walk up there in the light
On soft ground, happy geniuses! Sparkling divine breezes
They touch you lightly
Like the fingers of the artist Sacred strings.
What Hölderlin inspires me is the differentiation between thinking and philosophizing, Heidegger also discarded the second, in the case of the poet his life and work cause relations between thought and poetry, and this one in a new relationship with philosophy, there is no poets soon neither philosophers.
In the pleasure of the text there is a dialogue
02
Sep
In the previous post there are Barthes’ expressions on
literature, writing and text, and we have already conceptualized the idea of inscription which is supposed to be supported, writing and the cognitive aspect and in the text the linguistic, artistic and “installation” aspect, and it is this is where his book “The pleasure of the text” is analyzed.
The book despite theoretical aspects is in fact a pleasure to be read, there is dialogue and mainly pleasant surprises, such as, for example, a semiological space, a kind of place between two margins: “an obedient margin, according to, plagiarism (…) the canonical state of the tongue and another movable, empty (…) these two margins wax, are necessary ”(page 40).
It yields more classic literature: “by Zola, by Balzac, by Dickens, by Tolstoy) it carries with it a kind of weakened mimesis: we do not read everything with the same intensity of reading; a rhythm is established, leisurely, with little respect for the integrity of the text ”(page 17)
Proust, Balzac and Tostói deals in a single line of ruptures, “the very rhythm of what is read and what is not read that produces the pleasure of great stories: Proust, Balzac, Guerra e Paz will sometimes have been read , word by word? (Proust’s happiness: from one reading to the next, we never skip the same passages) ”(page 18).
He recommends how to do the real reading: “Read slowly, read everything, from a Zola novel, the book will fall from your hands; read quickly, in fragments, a modern text, that text becomes opaque, timely for our pleasure: you want something to happen, and nothing happens; because what happens to language doesn’t happen to speech: what “happens” *, what “goes away”, the gap in both margins .. “(page 19).
Contrast the text with the theater or the cinema: “In the text scene there is no limelight: there is no one active behind the text (the writer) nor before anyone passive (the reader); there is no subject and object. The text prescribes grammatical attitudes: it is the undifferentiated eye that an excessive author (Angelus Silesius) speaks: ‘The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which he sees me.” (pag.52).
It reveals the secret of another book of his: “Old, very old tradition: hedonism has been repelled by almost all philosophies; only the hedonistic claim is found among the outcasts, Sade, Fourier; for Nietzsche himself, hedonism is pessimism ”(page 74), the book quoted in the previous post that goes far beyond hedonism.
BARTHES, Roland. (1987) O prazer do texto. Trad. J. Guinsburg. Brazil, SP: Editora Perspectiva. (portuguese edition in pdf, in english edition pdf)
Authors and dialogues
01
Sep
I read a 1968´s text by Roland Barthes “The death of the author” 
in which he problematizes the concept, proposing it as “the destruction of all voice, of all origin”, he would also say about man today in a troubled moment of concept and events truly and “strangers” who are building “barricades in the texts”, what he said of his contemporaries (Alain Badiou and Jacques Derridá stated that without this concept no object is critically thought), and what he would say today, certainly his thesis I was right, and more so today.
It is known that Foucault gave pins to Barthes, but in Sade, Fourier, Loyola they were returned by inserting the reader in the discursive game and reformulating the question of authorship in another dimension: the body, this object of consumption of so many theories today, only in Barthes it finds some solidity (not liquid).
For Barthes the text is a body, an object of pleasure endowed with the ability to penetrate the reader’s life in fragments, generating coexistences between reader and author, or verbatim: “The pleasure of the text also includes a friendly return from the author.
The returning author is certainly not the one identified by our institutions (history and teaching of literature, philosophy, Church discourse); not even the hero of a biography he is… it is a simple plural of ‘charms’, the place of some tenuous details, the source, however, of vivid romances, a discontinuous song of kindness, in which we read death with all much more certainty than in the epic of a destination; it is not a person (civil, moral), it is a body. ” (BARTHES, 2005).
Barthes proposed in 1977 (Leçon) a distinction of the terms: literature, writing and text, which is particularly interesting conceptually, writing has something that is the manuscript an inscription in which a support, an utensil is supposed, in second place (although it is only of a didactic character) the cognitive sense, by which the installation is designated and the third the “linguistic” forms endowed with meaning that take on an artistic sense.
To problematize the question of “pluridimensionality” proposed by Barthes for literature, he initiates the so-called “genetic criticism”, problematizing the enunciative aspect of the term, aims to reconstruct a history of the text in its nascent state, seeking to find in it the secrets of fabrication of work, and thus it is explained what a text is and its relation to literature.
It is here that dialogue is established through language, without understanding the genetics of a text, there may be solicitude or dialogue, but it would not leave superficiality nor reach that level desirable for many contemporary authors to assume the preconceptions and establish new horizons. .
Barthes makes a valuable reflection on listening, distinguishing it from the physiological act of the mechanic of “listening”, giving it a statute of psychological act that can only be defined by its object and intention, a category so dear to hermeneutics although it is not exactly the same, has similarities.
The author makes a valuable reflection about listening, distinguishing it from the physiological and mechanical act of “listening”, giving it a status of psychological act that is defined only by its object and intention.
Barthes’ phrase is famous: “Any refusal of a language is a death” and an interpreter of this author explains the difference between hearing and listening: “[…] a poetic listening (‘brute’, as Barthes wants) aims not to imprison sounds in a hierarchical way, as in an insipid object of cold analysis ”(El Haouli, 2002), it is this aspect of hierarchical dialogues that dominate many who think they do it but do not do it, just want the passive submission of the Other to the their categories.
BARTHES, R. Sade, Fourier, Loyola, Paris: Seuil, 1971. [tradução: Sade, Fourier, Loyola. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2005.
EL HAOULI, Janete. Demetrio Stratos: em busca da voz-música. Londrina: Gráfica e Editora Midiograf, 2002.
Fear, death and salvation
28
Aug
The society of tiredness, the search for productivity and fear is not
that of the pandemic, it already existed before this health event, what happened now is that, at least people who have not lost their senses, fear of death is present and hangs over the whole of society, and ignoring death is not a good psychological attitude.
This is how psychologists who dealt with this issue related to children say, it is also true that fear can lead to panic that is not healthy either, but explaining and helping society to understand the limitations, even the production of the economy helps everyone, and the questioning the hyperproductivity that led society and nature to the door of exhaustion is also healthy, but now comes the economic crisis and what to do with it, again be sensible.
The poet Hölderling wrote “where there is fear, there is salvation”, at the beginning of the pandemic we thought that it was possible to treat the disease evenly, to reduce a little the activity that would help society to rebalance itself, but after many months the confinement also revealed itself problematic, but the fear of death and a certain blindness of not wanting to see the consequences continues in society, death is just a fatality, and not a possibility that takes us to care, care for life in every way.
Salvation resides in this fear, the fearless child is reckless, and the adult too often, does not think and does not act in favor of life, the preservation of self and others, thinks selfishly and this does not lead to salvation, it takes when dying more tragic than the fatality of death, even dying of fear, so the healthy and balanced is to deal with death, and those who need to remain socially active take the necessary care, but salvation, the rebalancing of the human.
This is at stake, what was the theme before the pandemic, is now reappearing in a tragic way and it is necessary to think about nature, production and day-to-day life that led to diseases such as panic, Burnout syndrome and the society of tiredness, to produce happiness we must not go to extreme tiredness and the exhaustion of nature and productive forces.
The very death of God, which for many seems like a huge tragedy, fundamentalists say the opposite and the Pharisees that we should not “spread fear”, when Jesus warns the type of death that would die, Peter says that God never allows such a thing , and Jesus’ reaction is at least curious (Mt 16, 23): “Jesus, however, turned to Peter and said:“ Go far, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you do not think the things of God, but the things of men! ”, And little reflection is made on this passage, at most saying that it is because I was going to die on the cross, but at that moment nothing it was still known.
The lesson of the pandemic, the fear of death and dying, which is the hardest, is that there is no salvation without suffering, sometimes even bloodshed, the post-pandemic must provoke a discussion and a much more serious thought than it has already done. it has happened so far, conservatives say life should return to normal and others say: “and the fight against the pandemic must be changed”, that there were many mistakes, but the essential problem is to change inhuman behavior and social structures.
Symbolic and structural evil
17
Jul
It being clear that it is not a question of the struggle between good and evil, but
the absence of good or the banality of evil, there is then a night in the West that cannot be unveiled if we remain superficial or “frivolous” as some authors point out, good is fragile, but not frivolous.
To understand the problem of “symbolic evil” addressed by Paul Ricoeur, one must look at its bases in Husserl’s eidetic phenomenology and in Gabriel Marcel’s existentialist philosophy, his search is what gives meaning to freedom (the modern view of free will ) and the reciprocal relationship between human voluntary and involuntary experience, this is essential to understand symbolic evil.
The original appearance of the question of consciousness (of something) comes from the connection that Franz Brentano makes when he returns to the subcategory intentionality, which broke the Cartesian identification between conscience and self-awareness, where intentionality reveals itself to be turned towards the outside and is thus projected outwardly with objective guidelines ranging from perception and imagination to will, affectivity and the apprehension of values (empathy stands out).
What is voluntary and involuntary depends on this “great thesis”, while Husserl operated in conscience to the analysis of perception and “representative” acts, Ricoeur extended to the spheres of affection and will .
So what is voluntary is the alternation between the vibrant impulse of emotion and the point of view of habit, while the involuntary “absolute” (symbolic or structural) is under what he called character (not in the moral sense, but in the sense of “ feature”).
The point of support that he has in Gabriel Marcel’s existentialist philosophy, without abandoning “eidetic analysis” is the problem of a subject capable of distancing himself from desires and powers, owner of his (and thus voluntary) actions and servant of the needs of the unconscious, character, an area not revealed in real consciousness and in life, although it seems to be outside the powers of the concrete, the historical, or what he calls the occasion, is the empirical realm of the will, seen in three moments.
The first is the human decision resulting from a project for the world (what Heidegger will change to a world view), the action includes both the dimension of a project with others in the world, as well as personal or subjective, however it does not separate and calls them -the body, and the body is seen as both voluntary and involuntary, but there is a “consent”.
Thus Ricoeur shows the exaggerations of idealism, and makes the “habit” in such a way as to inhabit it and make it habitable, and what the author points out that man can fail (his work O fallible man, from the 60s) , and the constituted guilt and the conscience of it are expressed in the symbols of culture.
Affirms the importance of mythical language to treat this symbolic, as well as the parable of the chaff and the wheat (Mt 13,24-29), which states that the “good” seed of the wheat blooms with the chaff (which must later be discarded), there are three situations: the seed that grows, the one that is suffocated by the chaff (symbolism of evil) and the one that falls between stones and has no roots (Ricoeur’s character would be this).
Paul Ricoeur (1967). The symbolic of evil. Beacon Press (Original published in 1960).
Modern thought and truth
24
Jun
Most of the issues raised in modernity refer to the Cartesian “cogito”, and
that this would separate body from spirit, in fact mind from spirit, however it is unknown that the question is previous and is the meaning of substance.
It can be seen in the Cartesian work that mind and spirit are very connected, it can be said that the mind is submitted to the spirit, it reads in the sixth meditation: “mens cerebro tam intime conjuncta sit” (Adam and Tennery, 1996, VII, p. 437).
The origin of two forms of thought, Karl Popper will say that Parmenides’ statement is ontological “being is and non-being is not” in the sense of does not exist (existential and not logical), and Heraclitus of Ephesus “everything is not is becoming ”seen as“ dialectic ” is also ontological.
For Aristotle the substance meant the support or substrate in which the hylé (Greek conception of matter) was constituted in something giving a form (morphe), Tomás de Aquino will think from there, and add a new component in the notion of substance, besides of these two, namely, the act of being (esse / actus essendi), the act of being from which its ontology comes. This was already in Plato.
The famous notions of act and potency, an example, the seed is in the potency of the tree.
Aristotle had 4 causes: Material cause: what is the thing made of? For example, a house would be bricks. Efficient cause: what do you do with the thing? it would be construction. Formal cause: what gives it shape? The house itself. Final cause: what shaped it? The builder’s intention.
But intentio in Tomás is a subcategory of consciousness, and will return to being a category for Franz Brentano, but changing it as the main category as consciousness directed towards something, thus very different from the everyday use of intention.
What Husserl a student of Brentano will think of Cartesian Meditations, is mainly in the fifth and not in the sixth thesis, where he questions whether Descartes does not suspend judgment, but not the ego.
It challenges the Self of Cartesian anguish, without understanding which path from the immanence of the Self to the transcendence of the Other? Reconfigure psychology through phenomenology. Through the method of phenomenological reduction, the Transcendental Self is reached, as this suspension of Husserl and his followers is a hermeneutic epoché, a place in parentheses.
The whole question of Heidegger (student of Husserl) and Lévinas is directed to this Other and Time.
ADAM, C .; TANNERY, P. (org) Oeuvres de Descartes, Paris: Vrin, 1996. Quoted in Amir d. Aczel: Descartes’ secret notebook, São Paulo: Zahar, 2007.
Conciousness and truth
23
Jun
One of the most common tricks is to say a half-truth, a lie without malice or that
which softens our conscience when we know that we are doing what is wrong, it is not a matter of politics because in many cases it is difficult to say that “good” politician if corrupted.
A well-known phrase from William Shakespeare is “We know what we are, but we still don’t know what we can become”, which is as interesting a phrase as “To be or not to be”, because it means that we can be beyond being current , so there is a becoming, so “not to be and I will be”.
The inner sphere in which we satiate emotional voids, frustrations or anxieties, for example in drink or food, we are filling the void by temporarily satiating, but it will come back.
The relationship with philosophy is broad, since Plato who defined the myth of the cave as passing from the world of shadows, where we see ourselves as projections at the bottom of the cave to a high, authentic sphere and where there is true freedom, and the fear of the half- truths disappear.
True consciousness is neither an awakening nor an enlightenment, but an “unveiling” to remove the veil, and the first step is that consciousness is awareness of something, where I found limits or an unexpected NO, not only a pain, but a obstacle at first insurmountable sight.
Gesltat psychology, with a strong influence of hermeneutics, defines how to be aware of something (awareness) and we find a correspondent in Japanese philosophy, for example, as “satori”, to remove the superficial layers to find the nucleus of something.
The three steps to enter these layers are: to awaken to our deepest zone, in the emotional aspect, our fears, anxieties and concerns, the second requires what happens outside, the context, the people and situations that I invest without results, and the third, much more complex, knows what he feels, what happens outside, but there are prejudices, barriers and something that makes him defend himself and not go beyond certain limits.
Make a change, it is not enough to find the strengths, it is precisely in the weaknesses that your defenses are weakened, and they are articulated with your mistakes and experiences.
