RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘Antropotécnica’ Categoria

The crisis of Reason: the dissent

21 Oct

Much has been written about it, but usually without leaving it, it’s like postmodernity, everyone shudders at the term, but any serious thinker knows we’re in the end of the modern, which will come later only crystal ball, but read The signs and understanding what changes we are experiencing can help a lot.
First I explain the prison we live, years ago when reading Horkheimer’s book the “Eclipse of Reason”, original from 1947, that Editora Unesp did a good translation of German, the author analyzes the technoscientific signs of modernity, but as instruments of More than those who can take dangerous and arduous tasks out of the hands of workers, the economic subjugation of course continues, which will lead to a mechanistic analysis of the digital universe, which is something other than Fordism and Toyotism.
In the philosophical aspect the work is between “objective reason” and “subjective reason”, which is basically the realization of human potentials as ends, with the development of practical instruments that enable such goals, the “means”, without escaping beyond rationalism. of ideas of progress.
It was another work that aroused my analysis beyond rationalism and development and progress at all costs, a compendium parading several national authors on “The Crisis of Reason”(Companhia das Letras, 1996), among several interesting essays highlighting the Jacques Rancière “The Dissent” and Gerard Lebrun’s “About Technophobia”, written in 1996.
Rancière makes a correct analysis based on the idea that “the currently dominant discourse that identifies political rationality to consensus and the consensus to the very principle of democracy” (Rancière apud Novaes, 1996, p. 367), and made his criticism pointing out three paradoxes.
The first paradox is soon after the fall of the former Soviet Union its opponents while celebrating its fall, resumed the “objective necessity”, ie the idea of resuming the productive forces of development in full swing, emptying the alternatives, thus established the “consensus” democracy as “the pure regime of economic necessity” (idem).
The second paradox is the mismatch of political wisdom, criticizes the discourse “which glorifies the actor, the individual who argues, who hires, who acts” (idem), the less things are to be discussed, “the more the ethics of the discussion are celebrated. , of communicative reason, as the foundation of politics ”(idem), is not what he says, but paradoxically when there is less ethics and less dialogue.
The third paradox is almost a prophecy, which Rancière calls “the national consensus of political parties and the advent of the great supranational spaces, reappear the brutal, more archaic forms of ethnic wars, exclusion, racism, xenophobia” (Rancière apud Novaes, 1996, pp. 368), it should be noted that the text is old, but this revival of the “national” was already evident.
His discourse is more complex as the text progresses, highlighting a passage that I consider important about consensus: “In its ordinary statement, consensual wisdom is presented as a thesis on the evolution of the politician summarized in the following idea: The old form of politics, that of conflict, has lapsed. The modern form is that of covenant, to deal between responsible partners…” (idem, p. 378), that is to say, it is not consensual, therefore, the dissent.
Ranci{ere, J.  (1996)O dissenso. In: NOVAES, A. A crise da Razão. Sâo Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1996.

(in Picture, between among several paintings in text, I chose the Divine Freedom of Goya).

 

Beyond tiredness, the present moment

17 Oct

Several factors succeeded can put our lives in disharmony, even if they are involuntary, deaths, tragedies, misunderstandings, etc. It may seem like little or nothing can do to change them, a familiar formula that is meditation and / or prayer may seem. escape.
There are several cultural currents that think of an appeal or religious that associate them with the new age, but the society of tiredness has discovered contemplation, Byung Chul Han wrote about this, Sloterdijk his master warned of “a de-spirited ascesis”, both are not Christians, and both may encounter aspects that call co-immunity or even contemplation.
Gradually the troubled mind becomes clear again, choosing a thought or attitude to make the day better, seeking a way to calm and relax and overcome conflict situations.
Psychopolitics, and the resurgent attempt at control of people, must have a calm reaction to claim that this is not working without upsetting anyone around them and to prevent them from making the moment, to try to control the attitudes of those around them.
Finally, what we wrote yesterday, in the midst of turbulence, even war are possible moments of truce, of happiness if we live detached from what is past and no longer exists.
The number of growing social problems will require attitudes not to fall into some form of psychic illness, depression, discouragement, dejection, or heavier syndromes.
There is a profoundly positive side to this, some form of spirituality has become urgent, and so far there are dangers because there are few who promise what they do not deliver: peace of mind, for social peace will take time and the obstacles to be removed are huge, but we have to do it too.
When watching movies, books and culture, of course of high level, everything seems to point there, a resumption of Being, uniting objectivity and subjectivity, action and contemplation may at last cost, but something will have to reflect and leverage a more “human” future beyond. of the fragmentary humanism of the modern.

 

At exam or the butterfly flight

15 Oct

Byung Chul Han wrote in “Ar the Exam” talking about the influence of social media today on our thoughts and actions, which he calls psychopolitics, that the “gift of power reduces the improbability of accepting my selection of course, my decision willingness on the part of others ”(Chul Han, 2013, p. 17), which can lead to lack of reflection and swarm.

He wrote of this reflection that: “The word of power suddenly eliminates the noise that inflates. It produces a silence, namely, the space for action. ”(Idem). He also wrote, from reading Flusser’s “Digital Turn”: “that the human being is… an artist who designs alternative worlds. The difference between art and science disappears ”(p. 82).

It dislikes and is strange that Flusser’s “new anthropology” is grounded in the “Judeo-Christianity” that “sees in human being only dust” (Flusser apud Chul Han, p. 83) which I like and refer to. It is precisely in this line that he will say “There is no subject and no object: we can no longer be subjects, for there are no more objects to which we could be subject, and no hard core that could be subject to any object” (quoting Flusser from “Media Culture ”, P. 213s).

Dislikes and does not accept Flusser’s messianism and says that “it does not do justice to the current topology of the digital connection” (Chul Han, p. 83), but I like both and I fully accept Han’s idea that in the Digital Swarm we lose perspective of reflection, or how he likes contemplation for action, I counter the idea of ​​the butterfly.

The butterfly because of the butterfly effect of E. Lorenz, his famous thesis that “butterfly wing beating can influence the weather in Texas”, ie small individual or group actions can generate the reverse effect of the swarm, but this effect exists and became evident with the modern digital media that Flusser little knew, died in 1991 the Web was just born.

Flight of the erratic and disconcerting butterfly nevertheless has direction and meaning, its birth is also curious it is born dragging like a larva and when it leaves the cocoon it is prepared for flight, dresses in multiple colors and shapes, it is less noted that the bees, but also does her “work”, I would say she is the artist of nature, performative and colorful.

The comparison with the swarm is because, as Han wrote, again quoting Flusser: “we too are ‘digital computers’ with buzzing punctual possibilities,” but then makes a harsh criticism of Flusser, there is an alternate digital where the butterfly takes flight, the art meets contemplation, and the birth of the present “active” world without reflection is not from now, see our previous post about a 1909 writing.

 

 

Collaboration and ingratitude

08 Oct

Seemingly so distant terms are deeply connected, collaboration that almost always involves a dose of gratuitousness (may even be paid, but does it with some generosity), and the ingratitude, which is not acknowledging the gratitude, of what is done. with some donation dose.

This always involves the means of power, in times of psycho-power, the choice of means for certain ends is fundamental, what the individual influences or challenges for his own benefit, is explained in Habermas using the concept of Hanna Arendt and polemizing with Max. Weber: “It is this capacity for disposition over means that enables one to influence the will of others that Max Weber calls power. H. Arendt reserves for this case the concept of violence ” (Habermas, 1980: 100).

Thus, it can be theorized that what does not lead to collaboration can lead to a form of power or violence, if we admit that collaboration has an essential opposition to ingratitude, or to even theorize, a dose of ingratitude.

Still in the field of theorizing, in phenomenological life I think that “means” have accelerated the idea of ​​collaboration, Habermas will speak of a “methodological individualism” applying it to forms of power that do not allow “mutual understanding” or overcoming ” egoic sense of power ”, which leads to non-collaboration and non-recognition of gratuitousness.

I think Hanna Arendt is more straightforward because her model is “a communicative model” (interactive) where consensus would be reached by non-coercive means, by “reciprocal understanding” that would lead to “common will”, in my view, is still lacking, idea of ​​gratitude.

In environments where collaboration and reciprocity, mutual actions of co-working, that is, working together, is already a reality, power is dispersed and the leader does not appear as coercive, Latin coercive power, meaning retention.

What is proposed then, starting from Hanna Arendt is to think of the way that allows collaboration as a communicative way of influencing the will of the other without coercing it, this leads to systems of ingratitude, misunderstanding and power struggle through of violence.

Habermas, J. (1980). A crise da legitimação do capitalismo tardio. (The crisis of legitimation of late capitalismo). Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

 

Ad Astra and the worldview

07 Oct

Writer James Gray’s vision of our cosmic futures towards the stars, ie Ad Astra, goes through a psychological-worldview of the contemporary world, I recall Byung Chull Han’s psycho-politics, and that in the future with machines prepared for this.

In the future there will be, in addition to the physical and technical tests we already do in various fields of sport to air pilots, also the psychics will be done for certain missions, in the case of the film, the evaluation of Roy McBridge (Brad Pitt), the space engineer for a trip to meet his father Clifford McBridge (Tommy Lee Jones) may still be alive there, although they say he was lost on a trip to Neptune.

Brad Pitt’s artistic competence helps the film, the film can be considered an approximation of Aliens, as when visiting a lost ship they encounter killer primates, or close to Apolipse now describing a future war scenario, where there is Space pirates on the military bases of the moon, purposely placed on the dark side of our lone satellite.

The parallel that I consider best is that of Blade Runner 2049, where the psychological climate overcomes the purely technological issue, and the psychopower becomes more visible and deeper, and the technological issue is the idea that improper use of propulsion energy now causes waves as violent forms, and this wave itself is then used to return to Earth.

It is true that the writer Gray’s worldview is of a war scenario, even for the trip McBridge will have to fight with military colleagues in order to make the trip against his father, since the psychological test evaluates that the son is affected by the filial relationship.

He can travel with the help of Lorraine (Kimberly Elise) who had his family murdered by his father, who had to fight a mutiny by the ship’s crew, who under psychological pressure wants to return to Earth, paradoxically Lorraine is one of the first born on Mars, since their parents lived in the military base of the planet.

After all, he finds his father, finds out that he was not exactly a hero, and that the version made for him was only to maintain the economic interests of the mission, and in the end they do not return to earth together, because their father found it difficult to go to the ship.

In return, he asks to be thrown into the infinity of space with which he had always dreamed. Despite the good acting, Brad Pitt’s nomination for awards would be more by the weight of the actor, the special effects are no big deal, there is a curious scene in which to reach the return ship, it shields a panel easily torn from a space artifact and then through one of Saturn’s rings like pebbles hitting the shield.

The interesting thing about the film is the existential and psychological aspect, so we seek in the universe answers that for our existence and the farther our worldview, the more possible to lose and lose contact with the “earth” can become reality, as the McBridge’s father, the first to land on planets where the man had not yet stepped.

 

 

The missing future, semi-open dialogues

03 Oct

The idea that we are about to change is in the mouth of many apocalyptics and some idealist theorists and philosophers, although most claim openness and dialogue, what they think about it is not elaborate, make long speeches and weave unrealistic narratives.
The true dialogue between tradition and change, fortunately in this field many people are doing this properly, must at the same time provide a rereading of the past, a respect and an understanding of why the events happened this way or that.
This is the reading from the pre-Socrates, through the high and low middle ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, although criticism can be done throughout, and even it must be well done, it is easy to do critical rereading because this time It has been difficult because the time has come.
Especially difficult for the Enlightenment and modernity, postmodernity or late, or its continuity, is still difficult to read because the transition has not taken place and the problem is the difficulty of overcoming it, almost everyone will agree that the Modernity is already more tradition than any possibility of a new “revolution” within its thinking, although the attempts are many.
Nietzsche called this dilemma “eternal return”, he already realized in his time and some think this is new, and in part was right for the horizon he saw in his time, but when the new is not born traditional thinking suffers from aging. and sameness.
It tries to look ‘new’ or ‘creative’, but there is nothing that really changes reality. Great sociocultural problems of our time, moral and even religious, will not change without a new perspective, although redundant one would say a brand new “new”, and in order not to be pure imagination, one must find elements already living that point to the future.
Three new elements are visible: a globalized planet, it is already possible to see itself as a world although different cultural aspects are not yet respected, an exhaustion of the forces of nature, the domination of nature by man was the great mode of modernity, and the end of hunger and misery on the planet, though with resources available for it, has not been realized.
Of course there are many other factors, but they stem from a lack of dialogue with the future, the centralization of autocratic groups, the absence of a networked politics and culture, although the mechanisms for this exist, are countered as “alienation” and even as responsible for problems that exist long before any thought about new technologies.

 

 

The foundations of the idea concept

26 Sep

Following Sloterdijk’s reasoning, in which the fundamentals must be thought and in function of them one can return to the principle and preconception of each thought, one can revise idea with the Greek “eidos”.

For Aristoteles there were universal principles, not as Kant later thought, but from the idea of ​​the one (tó hen), what is (tó on) and the genres (animals, plants, living beings), while essence (eidos) does not. would be a universal, but something common (koinos) to multiple things, there is therefore not in Aristotle the idealistic dualism, but the separation between universals and essence.

In Plato this dualism is accentuated, the sensible world and the world of ideas (still in the sense of eidos, essence), this separation will be troublesome to the modern idealists, who will unite it, but without a necessary philosophical reflection. the dichotomy subject and object never reunited as a being.

Ontology, and the method of philosophical hermeneutics, is an attempt to bring these fields together, although they remain distinct and under tension, but with possibilities of clarification beyond the classical separation.

Gadamer in his work matter “Truth and Method” vol. II, picks it up like this: “Hermeneutics is the art of understanding. It seems especially difficult to understand the problems of hermeneutics, at least as unclear concepts of science, criticism, and reflection dominate the discussion.

And this is because we live in an age where science is increasingly dominating nature and governing the management of human coexistence, and this pride of our civilization, which relentlessly corrects the lack of success and constantly produces new tasks of scientific inquiry, where once again progress, planning, and damage removal are grounded, develops the power of true blindness. ”(Gadamer, 1996: 292).

Gadamer after explaining that the return to Being proposed by Heidegger is a return to the hermeneutic method, which was neither to develop a theory of the sciences of the spirit (as idealism did, and the German in particular) nor to propose a critique of historical reason, as Dilthey did, and which Gadamer will clarify in his book “The Question of Historical Consciousness” to say that it is not even historical romanticism.

Its ultimate goal is expressed by stating: “what I did was put dialogue at the center of hermeneutics” (Gadamer, 1996, p. 27), but its dialogue is neither idealism (would be absurd) nor any form of philosophical blindness, it is precisely the rescue of philosophical hermeneutics.

Therefore, their dialogue is neither idealistic dogmatism, but nowadays theory has become ahistorical dogmatism, but rather the identification of preconceptions, from which it is possible to merge horizons as well as to accept worldview distinctions.

Gadamer, Hans Georg. Verdad y Metodo (Truth and method) v. II. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1996.2v.

 

Because idealism is bad

25 Sep

Like many criticisms that use idealism, they may seem exaggerated, or those that fall into the purely “theoretical” field, such as those that practice without foundation, or often empirical, but not quite, there are serious human diseases.

One of them is individual (in the plural, there is more than one type, eg, or group), criticized by the idealists, as it is not caught in the bud, not reprehensible, as in Popper and already commented on posts from previous weeks, but Sloterdijk is clearer: “Enlightenment, which strives to replace and objectify the saber, the silence, or the physiognomic world.

The price of objectivity is the loss of proximity” (Sloterijk, 2012, p. 200), despite a discourse on individualism, the idealist does not deviate from it, there is no proximity.

Distance exists because we are separate from objects, it is easy to argue the object “to itself”, it seems neutral or little “human”, but the damage or harm is caused by any object that is inherent to the subject that invokes or uses, or that it is inseparable from “physiognomic” objectivity.

The author says what kind of wisdom it produces, that which is linked to empiricism as it has historically happened, says Sloterdijk: “or love of wisdom inevitably to its objects and attenuates a coldness of purely objective saber.

A science that annihilates [or tries] in the last vestiges of philosophy under the guise of a lens also breaks the last strands of the sense of closeness and intimacy that bind things (idem), is easier to understand by insistent discourse against “objects”, and not a form of production, use and consumption.

But there are also opposing discourses, intimacy or intimidation, which manifest themselves here: “as an atmosphere, a moral-psychological vibration that does not find our civilization” (ibid.), Says the simple pronunciation of this word leads people to think of records, moods, and experiences, and is said to “aim in a mirror.”

There is a point not addressed by Sloterdijk that I also identify with idealism, comes from Parmenides and Plato’s World of Ideas, is the beyond the mirror, the perfectionism that is taken to extremes in our time, beyond the inherent narcissism, perfectionism leads the hype in the treatment of objects, food and consumer goods, and worst of all, there is no shortage of “reality shows” to propel these psychopathies.

On the other hand, Sloterdijk will say that the cynicism arising from this current thinking is also the one that leads us to see how ‘unhappy modern consciousness faces itself,’ I say, collapsing ever near nihilism.

While speaking of difference (we have already stated the preference for distinction), “the knowledge of the cynics belonging to the lords class (Herrenzynikers) rests on a false superiority” (Sloterdijk, 2012, p. 203), springs from a “false smile, ”suggest“ empathy, ”and other ways of concealing the appeal to ignorance, hypocrisy, and the reversal of real feeling.

This is beyond the malaise of civilization, says Sloterdijk, and invokes the offensive of Diogenes’ kynikê (cynical in archaic Greek) who, by proposing to “merge the coin again”, made the proposal to change sides definitively and provide to the powerful a philosophy of resourcefulness (see the picture of Goya “you will not find it” quoted by the author), of accepting dishonesty.

Nothing more contemporary than Diogenes, the Cynic, and the search “during the day” with a flashlight to find the honest man, cynicism reigns, there is little honesty in various environments, looking for it would be crazy, says the cynic.

Sloterdijk, P. (2012) Crítica da Razão Cínica * Critique of Cynical Reason). Brazil, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.

 

Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.

 

 

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.