Arquivo para a ‘Noosfera’ Categoria
Gifts and talents
12
Nov
Gifts are things we do and we seem to be born with it, that’s why it
was translated into Portuguese as a “dádiva” (godsend), while talent we can have an aptitude but it needs to be developed and improved to become really a gift, so we receive it from someone, from a structure or culture and we need to spend it.
Some cultures bring natural gifts, so it is said that that culture has good cooks, those are born workers, but a harmful or unnatural culture may not develop talents and even depending on authoritarian structures, suffocate it, but also in a white way a culture can spoil them.
Artistic, aesthetic and even moral gifts depend on a culture that promotes their development and make them talents that can be “donated” to the population in general, any culture that suffocates natural gifts is retrogression and may even lose its original roots , so many people who were colonized, marginalized or inferiorize suffer this type of mutilation, but there is always a way to resist, Picasso’s work “Guernica” is an icon of the Spanish resistance to authoritarianism, it only returned to Spain with democracy.
Also social, educational and religious structures can stifle natural gifts, and with that the talents that must be developed do not arise, they perceive the crisis process that lives, but they do not perceive the root and focal point of the crisis, they kill the talents and stifle the natural gifts that will generally endure.
It is the main characteristic of an authoritarian system, stifling talents and trying to control gifts, so few artists have survived in both Soviet Stalinism and Nazism and totalitarian regimes that served as support, such as Spanish Francoism and Italian fascism, but also modern perish from this evil.
Art is always a moment of resistance, Byung Chul Han developed the concept of Secret Garden, where it is possible to smell, feel and things, without mediation, a way to recover what he calls “original beauty”, the term it is good, but it should be combined with the concept of original gifts.
Da Vinci also stated that the “supreme law of art is the representation of the beautiful”, already for Kandinsky: “It is beautiful what proceeds from an inner need of the soul”.
According to Aristotle “beauty is the splendor of order”, but because of the association of this word with positivism, I would make a paraphrase saying that beauty can contribute to an original harmony that leads us to the good and beautiful as intended by Plato, a dialogue that leads the soul beyond the physical world, then there is the gift, the part of the original culture of each person and each people.
Combining gift and talent, we have a natural gift that, developing within a favorable culture, becomes a talent and elevates us as Being.
How to account for our faults
04
Nov
We all commit faults, if it is true that we cannot deceive life with
death, said the poet Goethe, we cannot fail to recognize the fatality of life that is its final decline. There is no contest to be made, nobody stayed for seed, says a popular Brazilian saying, and we don’t know what is wrong with the other, except for those who believe.
During years of life we walk inattentive with small and large faults, most of them we push under the carpet, other times we justify not always in a fair and coexistent way the faults we had, attributing the blame to the Other, but what to do before a moment that we must recognize what we did not do well and that we may have harmed many people.
Leon Tolstoy describes in “The death of Ivan Ilitch” a man in the face of death, who sees relatives more concerned with inheritance than with his own life, describes in the book: “He cried like a child. He wept because of his enormous weakness, and the terrible abandonment in which the family left him and for the cruelty and absence of God.”
Of course, not everyone will remember the absence of God, it is a kind of sacrament of ignorance, but there are also those who, even having “practiced” a religion, will find it difficult to perceive their faults and thus will have difficulties to account for them.
Even the joys of life seem distant at a time and that we will all be very fragile, Tolstoy describes in his tale: “The further away from childhood and closer to the present, the more insignificant, the more doubtful were the joys.”
It would be good if, due to a supernatural event, we could have clarity about our weaknesses and time to redeem them, but not everyone will, maybe something can happen.
It would be a great proof of existence and God and the idea that it is possible for humanity to have salvation, the pandemic crisis is greater because there is a civilizing crisis.
Happiness from beatitude, purity and love
30
Oct
All contemporary argument about happiness when it does not go 
down to the bottom of barbarism, is to link it to consumption, material goods and pleasure.
That is why beatitude has distanced itself from happiness, although in the western roots of classical antiquity (Eudaimonia) it is common, in “Ethics to Nicomachus” Aristoteles establishes: “As for his name, the majority is practically in agreement: happiness calls him, both like educated people, assuming that being happy consists of living well and being successful ”, but clarifies in another point that it is not wealth:“ Life (…) dedicated to trade is against nature, and it is evident that wealth is not the good we seek; in fact, it exists only for profit and is a means to something else ”, but at this point it will say that it is pleasure.
The question arises as to what is the end of this search, whether it is success, honor, recognition, in the end what we perceive is that “If, in fact, the good were one and predicable in general, and subsisted separately, it is evident that it would not be achievable or achievable by man; but that is precisely what we seek ”, what is this end.
In any eschatology we perish and if death is only a tragic and final end, it would be good to make the most of this life and even values such as honor and success would be worthless, only if these resulted in the end of “pleasure”, and not it is then humility, compassion and participating in the happiness of others are beatitudes that also result in our own happiness.
Thus, those who seek only their own happiness in no way favor their own since they have no occasion to share and selfish pleasure is only partial happiness. hedonists try to deny it, but those who really experience it guarantee that there is a balanced and always present happiness, joy and peace for those who practice it.
The Sermon on the Mount is a classic for those who believe and may well serve as a meditation for those who seek effective and full happiness:
the poor in spirit
those who cry
the humble ones
those who are hungry and thirsty for justice
the merciful the pure in heart
the peacemakers
those persecuted for the sake of justice
For these will be comforted, they will receive the land as an inheritance, they will be fed up with the justice that will finally be achieved, they will have mercy and will be called “children of God”, for those who believe in the greatest beatitude, it was the central and eschatological truth announced for all the humanity.
History will either go there or we will have a crisis process much bigger than the current pandemic, than the horrific cycles of war, and not be happy.
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.
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.
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.
Politics and religion
17
Oct
Hannah Arendt will argue against the confusion between politics
and religion, and clarifies the difference between a meeting place (being public) with differences in what she calls appearance and demonstration. The author says:
“Christian politics has always been faced with the dual task of ensuring, on the one hand, by influencing secular politics, that the non-political gathering place of the faithful is protected from the outside, and, on the other hand, preventing a meeting place becomes an apparition space, and with that the Church becomes a secular-mundane power, among others. Hence, it was found that the link with the world corresponding to everything spatial and making it appear and appear, is much more difficult to fight than the secular power claim, which presents itself from the outside in. When the Reformation managed to remove from the Church all that has to do with appearance and manifestation, transforming it again into a meeting place for those who, in the sense of the Gospels, lived in the recollection, the public character of these Church spaces also disappeared. “
The author has not lived until today to see the consequences of this, that is, that the denial of the public character of these spaces of the church, turned it into the opposite, that is, in a political opportunism to win the faithful who go there to seek a divine message. , a comfort for the soul, and often the change of life (conversion).
What happened were two apostasies, the religious one which is to deny the divine power of God, “my kingdom is not of this world” and the second much worse, which is to affirm it as a human power to which public policy must submit and so make religious believers linked to some political, ideological or cultural current.
Even though Jesus knew that the Jews lived under an oppressive and unjust Roman empire, this can be seen when he says, among many passages: “the tax collectors and prostitutes will precede you in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 21,31), which brings them together as sinners, and the publicans were responsible for the province before the Roman Empire, including income and taxes.
This is necessary to understand the meaning of politics and religion in the passage where Jesus is asked about the justice of paying tribute to the emperor, to which he replies: «Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is of God. » (Mt 22,21) therefore right after the previous section, where the right (and the power) to forgive sins is questioned, what was his authority in fact and then will compare it to the temporal (and spatial power according to Arendt) of which is “outside” the meeting.
In religious specific terms, the apostasy of betting on parties and ideologies, almost always with duplicate purposes and foundations, sometimes favor life, sometimes disadvantage it (abortion and euthanasia, for example), sometimes they defend the poor, sometimes they justify corruption, and so on, must not be compared to the infinite divine power, clear to those who believe, and to those who do not believe, the search for a guideline for society and for the world implies values
So the last ones will be the first ones
25
Sep
It doesn’t matter that you show that you do things well, that you keep
up appearances, that you are always in a prominent place, even in politics and in religious services and celebrations, the real conscience is that the intention is linked, and the intentionality is the consciousness directed to “something”, says phenomenology.
So that the new normality, not that of the post-pandemic, but that of the post-civilization crisis and everything indicates that it is on its way, can reverse the logic of the wickedness of the powerful, the oppressors and the Pharisees, only true solidarity will count, only it will be able to sustain the new course, which may not come from a new normality, because it was already distant before the pandemic, just read the serious literature that is not that of the media.
The fragile and the defenseless have become even more fragile in the pandemic, but the logic of power will be inverted by an aortic phenomenology, that which comes from the inorganic over the organic, comes from nature to the human, and from the cosmos to the planet, as stated Morin in his “introduction to complexity” the whole is in the part, the cosmos and nature in each individual, as the part is in the whole, we are responsible for everything that happens in Nature.
It is in cosmology and not in the systemic view, it is in aorganic holism and not in Cartesian holism, it is in mystique and not in pharisaism or ideology linked to religion, which is another type of religion without asceticism, the change comes from a long night of humanity, but you can concentrate on a visible night.
The poet Hölderling stated “where there is fear there is salvation”, and the moment of apprehension of humanity waiting for a vaccine must think of a vaccine that will remove the blindfold from the blindness of thought, Edgar Morin advocated this evening, and Peter Sloterdijk stated that it is not a favorable time for the exercise of thought, we are petrified in systemic and doctrinal logic that does not allow us to perceive a new one over the horizon.
That is why the last will be the first, simple people have the intuition of this possible change, the true sages want it, not as the powerful want it, but as the fragments of the social pandemic, irrational doctrine and closed in their bubble´s dream .
Those who blaspheme against religions affirm as the prophet Ezekiel said in the old testament (Ezek. 18,25): “You are saying: the Lord’s conduct is not correct. Hear, you of the house of Israel. Is it my conduct that is not correct, or is it your conduct that is not correct? “, the humbles can understand.
This is how the last will be the first, and the workers of the last hour will be, as the biblical parable says, those who called at the end of the day went to work and received the same payment as those who arrived at the beginning of the day, had not just gone because they had not been called (Mt 21: 28-32).
