RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘Noosfera’ Categoria

Naming elephant and worldview

13 Sep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Worldview or Cosmicview

12 Sep

Husserl’s concept of the world of life evolves into Heidegger’s Weltanschauung, his student, and is hasty to immediately link it to the worldview, just as both have a closer meaning than what some say is “superior” to the “world of life.” life ”, but in everyday philosophy we do not even get there, they still speak of“ theory ”the empiricists and idealists.
To the letter in German Welt – world, chauen look, means nothing other than a viewpoint on the conception of the world, but it was not just ‘philosophy’ but a vision beyond.
Ronald Nash, a Reformed theologian, gives a definition that seems to encompass many more and be more precise: “Life’s most important set of beliefs… is a conceptual framework by which we consciously or unconsciously apply or adjust all the things we believe, and interpret and judge reality, ”since we know even by normal science only 4% of the universe, that is, baryonic matter, and only now do we penetrate energy and dark mass with black hole studies.
Indigenous religiosity, especially Andean, as an example, has a complex view of theological interaction between original elements (what we call original culture), which interacted with phenomena and ideologies produced in modernity, even Christianity comes in with concepts of literacy. and I work with methods of modernity.
This has caused an interpenetration and reinvention of worldview that can and should be related to a worldview, the link with nature and the cosmos, with animals and which has led to the syncretism and reinvention of culture itself (Geertz 1978), and many other studies point to this worldview, such as Peruvian Maria Rostworowski and Colombian scholar Berna Carolina among others.
What purely economic or ideological studies do not understand is that cultural meanings change according to culture and its own worldview, it is impossible to treat it only with modern, colonialist or even pseudo-liberating categories.
It is necessary to enter the culture itself, to understand its originality, what is deep in the soul of these peoples, without this, colonialism with other names is reinvented.
GEERTZ, Clifford. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1978.

 

Physical cosmovision

11 Sep

Some people are impressed by flat earth theory, or those who do not believe that it is possible to step on the moon and that man has not undertaken this adventure, but quickly believe in miracles, meteors that will collide with the earth and other crazy things.
Stephen Hawking died last year, shortly before he gave an American TV interview, and when American astrophysicist Neil Tyson asked Hawking, “What was there before the Big Bang?” He replied that nothing, maybe there was matter or something, but did not follow the laws of physics, so at the origin there is a meta-physics, or a paraphysics, so the laws of physics and matter were not worth it, but of course there may be a kind of matter.
With his Brief History of Time, Hawking gained fame in the 1960s by explaining the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying it to the logic of black holes throughout the universe, and for those who understand and embrace this worldview it has changed what we think of. science and religion.
It is good to remember that Fr. Teilhard Chardin (1881-1955), before this had already formulated a theory of the Universe, and even Augustine of Hippo (354-430) admitted the Big Bang not with this name of course, but the formation of the universe and the planets. Hawking also agrees with the biblical text that there was a great burst of light, about 13.8 billion years, and from it a dense sphere of matter was expanding.
Hawking gained international fame in formulating, in the 1960s, the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying the logic of black holes to the entire universe. It has also changed the way we view science today, helping to spread physics and astrophysics.
Therefore, what existed before cannot be contemplated in any theory we formulate to explain our current observations. For Hawking, no law of physics applies until the Big Bang occurs.
The universe has evolved independently of what it was before. In 2014 the story of Hawking’s life was told in the Oscar-winning movie “Theory of Everything” (below), but what was before the Big Bang is a big mystery.

 

A worldview beyond time

09 Sep

Aristarchus of Samos (320 BC – 250 BC) organized a cosmology far ahead of his time, what was known to date was the studies of Pythagoras (571-390 BC) and Heraclides (390-310 BC), who claimed that the stars were immobile that the earth was the center of the universe, only Mercury and Venus would orbit around the sun. While flourishing Euclid’s Geometry (300 BC – ?).
Aristarchus which also had works on optics, music and mechanics, astronomy and astrology, invited by Ptalomeu I will compose the famous Academy of Alexandria, and his influence on the Renaissance will in particular influence his studies on proportions and projections, and although others are cited, Piero dela Francesca (1415-1942) is the great success of Euclidean geometry in the Quattrocent Renaissance.
Aristarchus’ view far ahead of his time was that the earth revolved around the south, and the moon revolved around the earth, thought of two experiments to measure Earth’s radio and the distance from Earth to the Sun.
The experiment thought was to build a tower facing the sea and knowing the height of the tower and the angle between the sea horizon (where there is less distortion thinking the earth as a sphere), can similarity of triangles calculate the radius of the Earth, the The error was small for the measurement difficulties of the time, very close to the 6 378 km of the equatorial radius.
If an object is 1 ° from some measurement point, that object is necessarily 57 times its size, because the tangent of 1 ° is about 0.01745 (see figure) see figure and so Aristarchus calculated the radius of the earth.
The second experiment, knowing the radius of the earth was to find the distance to the sun, he knew that during the full moon, under the average 31 minute angle of the arc (half of 1) tells us that this measurement will be 115 times its diameter, and we can find the distance from the earth to the moon, using again the tangent (he found an angle of 87º) one can measure the distance to the sun that gave 7 million and 300 thousand kilometers, in fact the angle was 89º853´, and the distance between the earth and the sun is 150 million km.
Carl Sagan makes a beautiful presentation and Aristarchus of Samos and his worldview beyond his time:

Source: Costa, J. R. V. Aristarco de Samos e a distância Terra-Sol. Astronomia no Zênite, jul 2000. Disponível em: http://www.zenite.nu/aristarco-de-samos-e-a-distancia-terra-sol/

 

New worldview and future

06 Sep

Tied to preconceptions and the worldview that is gradually overcome by reality can do little or nothing to make the future come true, the crisis is wider than the economic warns us Edgar Morin, is not the problem of technique, but of Being , to see the Other that is not the same, to leave worlds limited by limited worldviews and that admit no others.
This means abandoning many things that are dear to us, not the principles, but the ability to review them for even greater principles that include EVERYONE and not just the self or US of selfish, closed groups.
Quantum physics, dark bodies and energies (not holes, but still unknown matter and energy), show how limited our worldview is.
It is not about wisdom or phrases made superficial, theologies made by careful analysis of reading the text, the hermeneutic circle is precisely the possibility of a textual reading from the admission of preconceptions, seen here positively, the Indeed, we can accept another worldview with a different preconception from mine.
Invited to participate in the nascent Christian community, Jesus was also asking his disciples to abandon the ancient worldview of family attachments, work, and riches, but despite the growth of Christianity over millennia (now in reverse), this view has been misunderstood and misunderstood. by the exegetes.
In Luke 14.27: 30, the Master invites them to leave behind their worldviews to follow him: “He who does not carry his cross and walk behind me cannot be my disciple.
In fact, which of you, wanting to build a tower, does not sit first and calculate the expenses, to see if it has enough to finish? Otherwise, it will lay the foundation and will not be able to finish.
And all who see this will begin to mock, saying, “This man began to build and was unable to finish!”, But the contemporary step is bigger.
Yellow September requires that you see the Other not as someone with the same rights as US.

 

Techné, technique and current technology

03 Sep

The technique is as old as home, just as its “wisdom”, if we consider it as thoughts, the emergence of philosophy was nothing other than to create what as the word says “friends of wisdom”, these two concepts never were so important because of the current contradictions on these issues and for a “cynical reason” that was born.
The technique of “making” from the making of chipped stone in instruments can be said to be ontological, proper to being, which made man have a relationship with nature that distinguishes him from it, however it does not differentiate him because they too came and are part of nature, “you are dust, and after you return,” so that there are no mystical appeals.
Martin Heidegger maintains both terms (episteme and techné) interconnected, which is not entirely wrong, since Plato used them thus, but the specificity of modern technique is that it is not the technician, whereas the former requires a socio-anthropological conception, the technician requires a particular set of knowledge for a given “ know how to do”.
The great epistemological misconception of establishing the science + technique = technology formula is precisely the confusion between technique, which requires social contextualization and technology, which is the application of devices within an established context, without understanding technique we have become slaves. technology, which should be a means to support life.
To put it more clearly, the formula creates world order of factors, technique = technology – science, so the misconception is evident, technique requires a little meta-physis effort.
One of the people who did it consciously but not enough was Martin Heidegger, in his text he goes no further than the language and technical issues behind modern equipment, he analyzed Radio and TV.
But Heidegger’s text Question of technique (pdf) is an essential text about technique. different to the essence of the technique.
This video explains any his ideas about its:

 

Closing, pride and fall

30 Aug

Closed groups oppose criticism, call for dialogue and openness, but they are just what they are not allowed, making long speeches, are persuasive without opening up to what is distinct, ignoring the possibilities of mistakes and flatterers who do not use their support.
This is the mistake of the proud, failing to observe how the failures, and failing to realize or what leads to occur, even well-meaning groups and people, but with severe damage to a feeling of superiority, than in the last occurrences after the interruption. of pride, already stated in the previous post that can be positive, for the vanity that leads to the fall.
Great weapons are not enemies, which they are not always, for they can be people who warn of failures and serious defects, such as large corporations, groups with large applications and interests, and get lost in vices and defects that lead to serious falls.
There is no way to break or close allies and applause, unless there are warnings of misconceptions and that in general there are, there is always someone or some well-meaningly disabled voice showing who are the same values and great values.
Good proposals and good intentions are not lacking, but those who led the war, mistreatment, and the Forces alien to the common welfare of power generally went to the fragility of welfare, for those who have few resources to care for and many have for themselves.
To discard, it seems that all is well, but the price of freedom is an eternity, says popular wisdom, direction of goodness as well.
In biblical terms, there is a passage in which Jesus observes and arrives at a place where guests hosting guests are all sitting in privileged places, and tells them a parable of a wedding party, which explains that it may be ashamed if the owner of the come home and ask to sit further back giving a place for a more illustrated guest.
He says that by having a party he can be excluded because he receives nothing in return, “when a party invites the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” (Luke 14:13), they have nothing to do with repaying. therefore they will always be the same.
Van Gogh’s picture of potato eaters reminds the poor of their time, the characters seem to have a deformed human condition.

 

Dialogy and nonviolent power

15 Aug

To this day all power has been conquered with some form of force, since the first elaboration of the polis it is present, but even Hegel who elaborated the modern idea of ​​state stated: “[…] although the state may arise through violence, it it is not based on it […]. In the state, the spirit of the people is the custom, the law, and the rulers, ”quote by Byung Chul Han in What is power, but the author will take up another concept from Hanna Arendt.

Arendt’s concept of “space of appearance” leads to the power of language, thus makes it “between space,” so this space “illuminates each time, as one between when men are talking and acting with one another” ( Han, 2019) quoting Arendt.

Arendt will also transform this space of appearance. “Power is what it calls {existence and preserves in existence the open realm, the potential space of appearance between the speaker and the speaker.”

What happens in practical terms is that in the potential space of appearance, dialogue must exist in order to admit the distinction, yet, as elaborated by Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle, the preconception is viewed positively, each person comes to dialogue with his worldview, his preconceptions, and a fusion of horizons is a condition for after dialogue one can reach what is common, what unites in distinction.

Impatience and unpreparedness to dialogue often become an exercise in dogmatic proclamation of preconceptions, and it is impossible to reformulate ideas and actions.

True dialogia says the masters Martin Buber, Mikhail Bakhtin, one can include Paulo Freire, Paul Ricoeur, Emanuel Levinas and many others, the figure of the Other is not always present, and without a deep listening and respect to the distinction.

There is no dialogue. Bakhtin, even being a Marxist where conflict is a form of motor, develops the concept through linguistics, her focus of studies, defining her dialogue: “…. as a description of language that makes all statements by definition dialogical; as a term for a specific type of statement, as opposed to other monological statements; and as a vision of the world and of truth (its global concept) ” (Bakhtin, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, 1986, p. 506), and the use of this author here is by dialogia.

In Christian thought the fundamental thing is Love of Neighbor, that is, to consider it in all the essence of its dignity as a human person and worthy of divine love, where all its fundamental rights should be respected, including the first of all that is your being. The unity of Being and event is one of the dimensions of Baktin’s dialogia.

In Buber, Tu (Other) is something that goes beyond the person, being the divine present in it, and there can be no verticality.

 

 

 

 

Unity and distinction

14 Aug

The fact that the Deleuzian ontology admits the difference and remains in it without observing that the distinction has a common core where diversity can be obtained, is the admission that coexistence is possible where the hermeneutic circle takes place and not the inevitable confrontation.
Thus difference does not eliminate identity, for it recognizes distinction without remaining in the immobility of difference, so says in Difference and Repetition: “It is necessary that each point of view be itself the thing or that the thing belongs to the point of view. . It is therefore necessary for the thing to be nothing identical, but to be quartered into a difference in which both the identity of the object seen and that of the subject who sees it vanish ”.
That is, the difference makes what is seen an object by subject, an instrumentalization or objectification.
Therefore, they are not dialogues, it is impossible to merge horizons as Heidegger and Gadamer thought, the hermeneutic circle does not exist, it is a silent dialogue, where each one repeats his view of the object, so it remains in continuous anachronistic repetition without diaology.
The Portuguese writer José Saramago said after numerous controversies that provoked: “I learned not to try to convince anyone.
The work of convincing is a lack of respect, “it is an attempt to colonize the other”, many dialogues are methods of colonization or proselytizing.
It is the discourse of the authoritarian, the colonists, the fundamentalists and the proselytes, in a world that discovers nothing more dangerous diversity, to sit at the table is almost impossible.
The look is the same, what changes is the lens (figure), with the disadvantage that the divergent will never have a focus, disperses in an aperture where the focal point will never exist. It is first necessary to admit the hermeneutics, to admit the interpretation and the identity different from the Other, only in this way it is possible to seek the fusion of horizons, thus not being a hypocrisy.
While difference is synonymous with dissimilarity, unequal, distinct is synonymous with diverse, considered and in a sense even laudable and celebrated and re-conceptualized.

 

Dialogue and identity

13 Aug

Our society and our thinking since Plato and Aristotle is an identity-oriented thinking, Socrates and the pre-Socrates were more eclectic, because the difference, although tolerated, was fundamentally fought and still in our day even among those who dialogue.
It is the desire that we have things to remain stable, to change very little, meaning that deep down they must hold a certain sense of identity, that even if they admit difference or diversity, it must be placed somehow on rules and restrictions.
That is why I prefer the term distinction, the distinct is the different that does not allow for similarity, so the Asian is Asian for its distinction between Westerners, differences are enumerations and types of rules that ultimately want to erase the difference, but there are the distinguished one. Identity creates the Same, while distinction creates the Other.
Difference accentuates the uncommon and somewhat hinders dialogue, but Western philosophy did not think so.
This prevents change, because identity requires that what changes will not change its essence, remaining a background of the same, is a dialogue full of proselytizing, the idea of not accepting the distinction, what distinguishes is what is rooted.

Diversity throughout the history of identity and difference thought, several revisions have been submitted, the most current being the one made by Giles Deleuze (1925-1995) who studies the problem in depth.
Speaking of difference and repetition, Deleuze penetrates the symbolic, constructed and more conventional character of repetition, for him repetition is the need we have to see what creates our identity, without seeing the intermediation of the logic that creates our relationship with things.
Thus, for him, the repetition that tries to make a “world view” determination stable is nothing but a convention, since it does not allow us to see the ongoing change that despite feeling we try to hide the difficulty of leaving our “identity” and seeing the Other.
Brazilian philosopher Franklin Leopoldo Martins seeks to explain these relationships: