Arquivo para a ‘Linguagens’ Categoria
Worldview: Weltanschauung
14
Oct
Worldview (Weltanschauung translation in German), was the origin, 
the West thought in German philosophy, but the concept was consecrated by Heidegger and somehow the thought of Edgar Morin, if translated worldview in cosmovision.
.
Most people not only had the word, as they had to a symbol to represent it as chakana of the Incas, Cilappatikaram (or Silappadhikaram) people south Indian, the Epic of Gilgamesh of Mesopotamian-Sumerian civilization and the majority population the Fertile Crescent.
According Apostel, we think this view of the world from an ontology with the following six elements that can describe it: a world of explanation, futurology, which answers to “where we are going,” a praxeology or methodology that means “as we must achieve the goals, “an epistemology or theory of knowledge:” what is true and false in this vision, a cause, that is, which are its constituent elements”.
Lack in our view a noosphere, epistemology and praxeology establish a sense of “belief” that is bounding this worldview, however large, will have a limitation.
This need is by Edgar Morin in science with consciousness (1998), where he states that the scientific activity must be accompanied by an ability to question, checking questions of the spirit, or noology “able to conceive how and where cultural conditions the ideas are grouped, are linked, fit, form system that self regulate if
Morin, in his book Science with Consciousness (1998), elaborates his concern with the means of scientific reflexivity, that is, the possibility of scientific activity be accompanied by a self propagation capacity.
For him, it would be necessary to have a science of things of the spirit, or noologia, “able to conceive how and where cultural conditions ideas are grouped, are linked, fit, are systems that self regulate, define themselves, if self-replicating, if self propagate “(MORIN, 1998, p. 25-26).
Thus the seventh dimension would include a noologia, if viewed in conjunction with the six world view points become a noosphere, like that of Teilhard Chardin, who sees in the Christian worldview, but which may well be accepted within a noologia Overall, as proposed by the Brazilian philosopher Mario Ferreira dos Santos.
The Symbolic of Evil
10
Oct
Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine for Catholics), had written that 
“evil is the absence of good”, but what does evil persists, because we still talk of wars and atrocities?
The philosopher Paul Ricoeur, who died in 2005, had written on the question of Finitude and Culpability in the 60s, and volume two Symbolic of Evil, was translated and published by Editions 70, Portuguese in 2015, in which he demonstrates why the subject modern ceased to be the center of that part of a philosophical reflection today.
The French philosopher shows that Augustine (354-430 AD) when attempting to disallow Manichaeism, formulates a no knowledge of evil as the approach the concept of original sin, establishing a framework from which evil is to exist to the extent that the man passes through generations of his descendants, and if we had a way back to original sin arrive.
Ricoeur will support other bias that the concept of evil is based on original sources, from which we can find the existential origin of evil, and who could have done it, so the misdeed and the author of this action are contained in symbols and myths created through human history, therefore, that is, the “desire to be and effort to be” known phrase of Spinoza, there is therefore an anthropological and mythological construction that gives life to this “symbol”.
There is therefore a possibility of a sharp understanding, finished “before the evil apohria”, that means we face a rational difficulty to define it, but as a symbol exists in all human history.
Kant, as well as all the idealism, say that it is human freedom but to recognize evil through man and freedom is itself a free movement of a being who takes bad about themselves, time in the same way this statement is the freedom that recognizes its responsibility, but confesses consider evil as evil committed, and confesses that he was in his hands not to have committed, so evil is not justified by freedom.
Then evil has no freedom as its original source, but only as its author, so free will is justified, but does not explain the confession of responsibility leads to the condition that there is a primary source from which comes the realization that it is evil.
Ricoeur then takes care to show that ” fallibility”, i.e. the “idea that man is constitutionally fragile and can fall,” an element “fully accessible to pure reflection and points out a feature of the human being” exposed to a multitude of faults, which against not surprising that slide, but there is a profound distinction between fallibility and failure.
Says the philosopher who is the first natural nature, biological, while the second is moral or cultural.
Ricoeur argues that human fallibility e is only one condition, “the possibility of moral evil”, inscribed in the constitution of man, but between fallibility and the lack there is a gap, a leap that needs to be understood.
“Our anthropological reflection is before this jump; ethics, by contrast, comes too late. To surprise even the jump time, we need to take a new route, apply a new style of reflection, focusing on the confession that consciousness recognizes the jump and evil symbols by which expressed this confession. “(Ricoeur 1960)
Ricoeur, Paul. La symbolique du mal. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.1960.
The good, the communication and the Self
22
Sep
Open to read “The fragility of goodness” Martha Nussbaum, unable to
walk much, I received and opened it to read “The idea of the good in Plato and Aristotle” Hans-Georg Gadamer, was not too far, but in both I am happy to realize that it is a matter that belongs to the foundations of our Western thought, not just the Judeo-Christian.
I return to our time, and retrace reading Habermas, and it against a self-criticism of both Kantian as Hegelian issues, looking at Peter Frederick Strawson (1919-2006), Paul Lorenzen (1915-1994) and Popper and understand a little better question of good, with the idea that modernity brought “grand unilateralizations” but that was to claim to preserve the unity of reason in the cultural field, without going through the subjective questions.
Habermas goes to the practical point of life, and although people are inconsistent in daily life with the understanding of what is right and what is good, there are problems when we want to explain the meaning of terms such as, “So good” or even ” the book is heavy, “because not reducible to a rational simple logic type” s p “, since there are many meanings in the experience of each of the same logical proposition.
Moral dilemmas in Habermas’s view, first arise in the world of life, the Lebenswelt which is the first of the moral to the philosopher, and will be in this world that they will see a “communicative action”, “to interactions in which people involved sets according to co-ordinate their action plans, the agreement reached in each case measured by the intersubjective recognition of the claims [of validity “(Habermas, 1989, P. 79).
Habermas raises the problem that goes from proposition to the understanding, recurring problem in the world of language, but now with an imperative: “Either we say that is the case or which is not the case or well we say something to others, so that he understands what is said “(Habermas, 1989, p. 40). It features the pragmatic-linguistic argument the validity of the objective world of things, the normative world of rules setting out what should be in the subjective world of experiences, and draws the moral standards and safeguards Ethics.
My conclusion is inevitable, it lacked the ontological understanding that is not subjective, not even hidden to be unveiled, understand the way Gadamer and Martha Nussbaum.
GADAMER, J. Little political letters, brazilian edition.
The dialogue impossible
15
Sep
In the political field and the scenario that it is presented in national and
international field, remember here Trumph versus Hillary the edge of one of the largest and most impressive witnessed campaigns in American history, a time that Donald Trumph seems like a character out of some banana republic dictators and not a great country.
Lack wisdom, some real rigor and even common sense, but let’s look at it another way, what happens in the knowledge of mankind.
At the edge of the second world war many were the signs of decay and conservative arrogance, but looking thought we could see: the circle of Vienna, but this was the Marburg School passed by Ernest Cassirer, Paul Natorp (1854-1924) and Hermann Cohen (1841-1918) who had published Theorie der Erfahrung, the starting point of this group.
All agreed that the main emphasis was the “theory of knowledge” and therefore will be in the epistemological chain, while elsewhere was reappearing, but with a new hue, ontology through the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), of where they came from his student Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and then Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) and Emmauel Levinas (1905-1995), and many others of course.
What was at stake between the apparent debate between gnoseologies and ontologies, Popper (1902-1994), Lakatos (1922-1974) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) are not the same question about the thought of what is knowledge and science also is in play between ontologies, because since Husserl, I think his teacher Franz Brentano should be evaluated part, to Levinas and Ricoeur, can be thought so, from where the knowledge but of being, and not part of being that is the truth, that is, the question is knowledge, hermeneutics that is metaphysical and scientific, then it is in the three fields, although targeted.
For something thoughtless and totally new, Schleiermacher considering the Bible as a text of historical-literary nature, proposed a method which now serve to elucidate not only the Scripture but also of all the texts that possess this nature, under this influence Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) reexamines Heidegger and proposes the hermeneutical circle, reviewing the pre-concepts, proposes the fusion of horizons and the reading of the author, resurfaces the field of hermeneutics now on linguistics and ontology, new ample space for dialogue.
(Português) Empirismo é racionalismo ?
18
Jul
Following our author-guide Peter Kreeft in his imaginary Socrates’ dialogue
with Hume, now Socrates ask about the method and what is true for Hume, trying to show it as rationalist, to Hume says it is not, Socrates replies:
“SOCRATES: In his epistemological theory, yes, but not his method. Your method, like theirs, is to reduce or data to explain the complex to the simple, the rich variety of experience to simple universal formulas. HUME: But this is just one of the elements of the scientific method. SOCRATES: And this means that it should be an element of philosophical method?
HUME: There is nothing absolutely true or false with respect to a method … a method is just a tool, a practical means in order to find the truth. What we should discuss is about true.
SOCRATES: I agree. But it can not be true that the scientific method is not suitable for the philosopher an unscientific method to a scientist?
HUME: And that would use method to compare the scientific method to any other method? SOCRATES: I would use the universal method of logic.
HUME: Fair enough.
SOCRATES: And I say that reductionism violates the laws of logic.” (Kreeft, 2012).
The reductionism is the basis of rationalism and empiricism also, this is a simplification of reality in formulas and processes apparently explained, but they are complex.
The theme is earlier modernity in the late Middle Ages, the English nominalist William Ockham created the method “between two explanations choose the simplest,” and because of it it became known as Razor Ockham.
