Arquivo para a ‘Antropotécnica’ Categoria
The being in its authenticity
16
Jun
Heidegger’s incursion into what social life is is that it is 
governed by an obscure notion of what coexistence is, where there are no subjects but an empire of the impersonal, of the empire that the translation into Portuguese is very good, empire of “we” is a truncated sociability, it is not just individualism, but a place where neither the “I” nor the “we” are distinguished.
This individual space is the one that levels everything down, a loss of Dasein in the open space of “public opinion” (Öffentlichkeit]), a truncated sociability, even us does not include the Other.
In this being there of Dasein to what extent he deals with other people in his daily environment, for this Heidegger takes a step in the determination of existential analytic, which is to answer how the world opens to Dasein, regardless of whether it is the world of things or of men, this can be understood by how he sees the opening to the world.
He sees it as a first and fundamental opening in a triple way: the disposition, the understanding and the interpretation, understanding that this makes him involved with the world.
So first the human being is taken by states of the soul that unreflectively open the world to him, usually through a certain deviation, a disposition, he understands the world not as a theory or concepts, but as Dasein itself is understood in a situation.
Thus disposition becomes understanding, but it is not man who understands the world, but the world understands man in a totalizing way, where the whole human being is under-stood (in sense of under-pres) and this refers to the concept of project (Entwurf) in an essential sense: it is designed in the world.
This project gives man the possibility of interpretation, and only then manages to translate the world into speech and language, considering that the proposition and the utterance always imply a later moment in the existence of Dasein.
It is these openings to the world in speech and language, however, that must take into account the proposition and utterance as implying a moment, always later, in the existence of Dasein, but the tendency to cover up in Dasein is always strong so that it becomes free.
This fundamental trait of concealment and escape from oneself asserts itself and determines the being-in-the-world of the being-there (Heidegger, 1989) raises the question of the possibility of the being-there leaving its inauthenticity.
HEIDEGGER, M. (1989) Ser e Tempo Translation by Márcia de Sá Cavalcanti. Petropolis: Vozes.
What humanism are we talking about
15
Jun
It is common to establish a connection between ontology
studies and the question of existence, the philosopher Paul Sartre did, but neither the ontological tradition of scholasticism nor Heidegger make this connection, the latter emphasized: “The main statement of existentialism has nothing in common with that statement of Being and time” (HEIDEGGER, 1996, p. 329).
In his 1947 Letter on Humanism, Heidegger states that what distinguishes man is his relationship with being and the way in which he protects being, and not insofar as he is defined as a being endowed with reason, he himself criticizes humanism, for him what there is is a forgetting of being, which is diagnosed in every western philosophical tradition, starting with Plato and extending to Nietzsche.
The theme of being characterized in Western thought, which has incipient roots in the pre-Socratics, since it predates “episteme”, is again taken up from Heidegger as a “fundamental ontology”, that is, with the possibility of questioning the be, and like this questioning, the humanism of every man.
It is necessary, while discussing ontology, to understand that Dasein, Heidegger’s being-there, is concerned with examining how the first, the original understanding of man in his very essence, takes place, even before the moment of formulating a theory or of having consciousness, theory arrives at a later time and consciousness gives after man’s opening to Being.
To understand what Heidegger characterizes as existence, one can read: What is metaphysics? (1929), which reads: “The word existence designates a way of being and, without a doubt, of the being of that being that is open to the opening of being, in which it is located, while sustaining it” (Heidegger, 1989, p .59).
Thus, the objective of the fundamental ontology of Being and Time is the being who is placed as a privileged being and who is able to question the being, who has an understanding of being [Seinsverständni], and this being is man, and from him what thought humanism.
It is true that there is a criticism of Peter Sloterdijk in “Rules for the human park: a response to letters about humanism”, which questions anthropocentrism, our relationship with nature.
Heidegger, M. (1989). Ser e Tempo Translation by Márcia de Sá Cavalcanti. Petropolis: Voices.
______. (1989) What is metaphysics? Translation by Ernildo Stein. São Paulo: Abril Cultural. (Os Pensadores collection).
Action without reflection, the “active” life
02
Jun
When criticizing the “Society of tiredness”, the efficientism that
Byung Chul Han takes up in his last book, in the following post we will comment, both point the finger at activism, or the word that Sloterdijk likes: “agitationism”.
The notion of praxis that Sloterdijk defends is not the notion of praxis as an act that considers the central myth of modernity – “agitationism”, which is, at bottom, just an inversion of poesis and theory – but as a “letting go -flow”, a type of active contemplation.
To demystify this notion of praxis as a necessary correlate of action-reason, practical philosophy would have to become aware that it allowed itself to be deluded by the myth of action and that its alliance with constructivism and activism prevented it from realizing that the The highest concept of behavior is not action, but letting it happen, being able to let go of the things that pass you by and act through you, in order to be more faithful to the author’s words.
To understand what he means by Critique of Cynic Reason, one of his most hermetic works, he differentiates classical from modern cynicism, which comes from the origin of the guild term “kŷőn”, from modern cynicism that has become an “enlightened false consciousness”.
The Enlightenment assumed that one lived in darkness where evil was practiced, but that this evil would be the result of ignorance, so its attempt to illuminate those lacking the light of reason, but this created a “false consciousness”, a distorted view of reality,
The Enlightenment presupposed darkness where evil was practiced, which was seen as the fruit of ignorance. Criticism tried to illuminate the dens devoid of the light of reason. Hence the basic concept of ideology as “false consciousness”, as a distorted and therefore false view of reality, and so that you don’t think that this is just philosophy, the “engaged” thinker Slovoj Zizek will also say that it is inscribed in the things themselves.
In a different way, Husserl, from whom all the affiliation of modern phenomenology is heir, also proposed, to return to consciousness of the things themselves.
Modern cynicism has also become a form of ideology in which a mask continues to turn into action, building grand theories that both “figuratively” and “in the literal sense act as if they don’t know or don’t know reality, everything is narrative only to use the current word.
Hence the critique of cynical reason defending a critical-ideological-classical procedure that has become obsolete, and this critique now contrasts a lightness of humor with the excess of theory.
The author will say: “[…] The great thought of antiquity has its roots in the experience of enthusiastic serenity, when, at the height of having thought, the thinker sets aside, letting himself be penetrated by the ‘revelation’ of the truth” , is very close to the distance proposed by some “active” authors, but with the differences of “enthusiastic” serenity and the view of “Being”.
This view of the cosmos in antiquity, says the author: “it is based for the Ancients on “cosmic passivity” and on the observation that radical thinking can recover its inevitable backwardness in relation to the given world, in by virtue of its experience of being, it reaches the same level as the “whole.”
SLOTERIJK, P. (2012) Critica da Razão Cínica (Critique of Cynic Reason), trans. Marco Casanova. BR, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.
The trinity in an anthropotechnical perspective
26
May
The whole philosophy of Sloterdijk must be preceded by
a good reading of Heidegger, trying to simplify what is per se impossible, we explain the category “without-in” that will be used a lot in his speech on the Trinitarian relationship, from where the “imbricated cosubjectivity of the God-soul dyad” (Sloterdijk, p. 490), where“ theological surrealism hides, as we will show, the first realism of the spheres ”(idem).
Sloterdijk does not use epigraphs just to decorate the text, in chapter 8 “Closer to me than myself: theological propedeutics for the theory of the common interior”, in the epigraph he explains: “… it means ´be-em´ [In-sein] ?… Being-in … means an ontological constitution of existence (Dasein)” citing § 12 of Heidegger’s Being and Time.
It clarifies in the other quote in the epigraph that “perhaps Em is the envisioned kingdom of all life (of all morals) of God”, quoting Robert Musil in his book “The man without qualities”, which he is today.
Before going into the question of the trinity, he explains that human love “does not exist at all before it is produced” … “in the perspective of individualistic modernity – two loneliness that are uprooted by the encounter” (p. 491), and will return to incident of paradise lost asking if it was not “a painful gap of strangeness?” (idem).
It was Augustine, he explains in the “Confessions” that he took “the dialectic of recognition from ignorance” (p. 492), in his “cryptic masterpiece” De trinitate (in particular books VIII and XIV) “that deal with accessibility of God through the traces left inside the Soul ”(p. 493), and although it traces its contradictions with the theological discourse, he affirms“ it can be considered as the great logic of the intimacy of western theology ”(idem).
The long analysis that goes from page 494 to 524 in which he penetrates the contradictions of the religious discourse, passing through biblical citations, Nicolau de Cusa, Duke João da Baviera, a learned and unauthorized Cardinal in the literature of the Christian tradition, reaches a final verdict, this important yes, which is how Platonic dualism caused “side effects… in doctrines of this type [which] also break the sense of being-in” (p. 524).
Illustrated with the painting by Juan Carrero de Miranda “The foundation of the Order of the Trinity” (oil of 1666), the author proceeds to make the “topographic distribution of the Three in the One”, highlighting in the table the “classic quaternity covers the Trinity and the Universe ”(we highlight it with a small red circle), it would be good if you did it.
Within his spherology, Sloterdijk explains that “echoes characteristic of the philosophy of nature, even though it has been a long time, the cohabitation of spiritual entities”, so we are closer to other “animist” worldviews than we imagine, in a dualistic theology.
Analyzing the discourse of Pseudo-Dionísio Aeropagita, he clarifies that “the pathos of the difference of differences within the One was already known to Neoplatonism, and the“ mutual justification of the principles of the people of the Trinity ”(p. 130) will benefit from it.
He is well aware of the pericoresis of Cappadocian priests (St. Gregory of Nissa, St. Basil and St. Gergorius of Nazianzeno) (p. 540-541), in addition to Augustine used abundantly, he also cites João Damasceno (p. 538, 544-546) and quotes Tomás de Aquino.
SLOTERDIJK, P. (2016). Esferas I: Bolhas, trad. José Oscar de Almeida Marques, Brazil, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.
Trinitarian thinking in non-Christian authors
25
May
Understanding the mystery of being three people, but one God,
it is clear that it penetrates into the Christian mystique in its depth, however if we imagine that there may be the key of the human relationship where two people put themselves in a symmetrical relationship, that is, of mutual respect and love, one is inseparable from the other, it can be understood that it is possible for a non-Christian author to understand the issue.
We will go through three authors, Giorgio Agamben, Peter Sloterdijk (together with his disciple Byung Chul Han) both non-Christians and how could not help being a Christian, Piero Coda, who introduces us in a new way in this mystery, typical of a charism of the 20th century, which proposes the unity of the human family, what seems difficult and in a certain way tragic (the author himself affirms it), is in fact a new theological opening.
To understand Agamben, it is necessary to understand that part of a very interesting hypothesis, but in our view not enough, that the history of Western culture results from a paradigm resulting from Christian theology, which sees the continuous history of separations and crossings between these two paradigms: the political and economic, forming a bipolar system.
This is described in two of his works: “State of exception” (2003), which in fact always surrounds the West between auctoritas and potestas and, in the work O Reino e a Glória (2011), which can take the formula: Kingdom, Glory and Oikonomia.
Because Agamben’s work is indeed valid, because Oikonomia, which has its origin in classical antiquity, which means organization of the house can and would even be interesting if it were in fact the “organization” of household goods, but the Greek origin itself means no longer Christian.
Where they are confused, in Greek, oikos (house) and nomos (law, rule, norm), were used by Xenophon and Aristotle (in ancient polytheistic Greece) this term designated “the sets of precepts that govern, or should govern, the activity of the ‘lord of the house’ in obtaining the necessary resources for the life of the family ”, and in Christian theology all being brothers, we are in the same “house”, but there, because the argument that Agamben will use of monotheism does not it is valid for the Greeks.
Although Agamben understands that in the book L of Aristotle’s Metaphysics there is already a marked distinction between Kingdom and government, the same book that another critic of monotheism Erick Peterson wrote against political theology.
There God appears as the immobile engine of all things that would ultimately mean a Christian “category”, which in fact could be for some authors, but it is certainly not the Christian God. However, this is not the Christian God, there is no real Trinitarian interpretation in Agamben, but an adaptation of the Aristotelian, dualistic view, being is and non-being is not, for the view of the Trinitarian.
Agamben’s great contribution is in his great work: Homo sacer: sovereign power and naked life, where he addresses the concept of naked life, like that which is found in a gray area of political life, between zoé and bios, the Aristotle’s concept of man as a political animal explained, deepened and updated.
AGAMBEN, Giorgio, (2007) Homo sacer. O poder soberano e a vida nua I. Trad.: Henrique Burigo. Brazil, Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Idealism and its religion
14
May
Beginning with the critique of idealism, in “The German Ideology” (1932), where
he talks about Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, who even call them St. Buer and St. Stirner, for their claim to be theology.
If the essence of idealism is the separation of object and subject, I make a purposeful inversion, the essence of religious thinking for Ludwig Feuerbach is the separation of subject and sensible objects, for for him object consciousness can be, although distinct from itself, a consciousness that coincides shortly thereafter when dealing with the religious object, because of its “transcendence” is exactly what makes it return to self-consciousness, I explain.
For Feuerbach, and the sensitive object is out of being (though ontology here is only an appeal), the religious object is in it, it is an intrinsic object, and neither does it abandon it, its moral consciousness leaves it, it is an intimate object. , and even the most intimate, is the closest of all.
His critique of theology using idealism essentially presupposes a critical judgment, the “difference between the divine and the non-divine, between what is and is not worthy of worship,” so that with this dualism it is possible to play all the essence of the divine in the mass grave of the Ideal.
The consciousness of God is man’s consciousness itself to him, this is the Hegelian idealism made religion: the knowledge of God which is man’s self-knowledge, there is no God-self for man.
The negation of the subject is considered irreligious, and its relation to sensible objects, a negation of the subject, is the atheistic religion of Feuerbach, which Marx will turn to call them the Old Hegelians, and seeks to make their inversion here new now. from object to subject, here is the new “religious” version of the Young Hegelians, like Marx, even criticizing Feuerbach’s main atheistic thesis: “thought comes from the subject,” not the object.
It is no longer about Heaven to Earth,” said Marx, but now “from earth to heaven,” that is, from the object to the subject, the labor force and the production, to their divinization (of the object, of money, economy, etc.). If, for Marx, fetishization was the separation of labor from his instrument of labor and commodity, fetishization may be reification (res – thing) or objectification for these young “Hegelians”, where he sees the separation between subject and object. , in religious fetishism is the separation of (sinful) consumption of the individual (seen in self-awareness) to which the religious must “attend” and live his “concrete”. The fair relationship with money, work, health and education is only a surpassing of the idealistic religious view, its consummation in a man in harmonious relationship with the world, and in this case also beauty, poetry and life. healthy would have a perspective, for the “pure” religious not. This religiosity lacks an asceticism that in fact “elevates” them, although they seem as linked to contemporary themes, actually has an idealistic god and not pretending to be realistic as they would wish, their concrete is the modern state god their economy, or the positivist law and his narrow view of justice.Beginning with the critique of idealism, in “The German Ideology” (1932), where he talks about Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, who even call them St. Buer and St. Stirner, for their claim to be theology.
If the essence of idealism is the separation of object and subject, I make a purposeful inversion, the essence of religious thinking for Ludwig Feuerbach is the separation of subject and sensible objects, for for him object consciousness can be, although distinct from itself, a consciousness that coincides shortly thereafter when dealing with the religious object, because of its “transcendence” is exactly what makes it return to self-consciousness, I explain.
For Feuerbach, and the sensitive object is out of being (though ontology here is only an appeal), the religious object is in it, it is an intrinsic object, and neither does it abandon it, its moral consciousness leaves it, it is an intimate object. , and even the most intimate, is the closest of all.
His critique of theology using idealism essentially presupposes a critical judgment, the “difference between the divine and the non-divine, between what is and is not worthy of worship,” so that with this dualism it is possible to play all the essence of the divine in the mass grave of the Ideal.
The consciousness of God is man’s consciousness itself to him, this is the Hegelian idealism made religion: the knowledge of God which is man’s self-knowledge, there is no God-self for man.
The negation of the subject is considered irreligious, and its relation to sensible objects, a negation of the subject, is the atheistic religion of Feuerbach, which Marx will turn to call them the Old Hegelians, and seeks to make their inversion here new now. from object to subject, here is the new “religious” version of the Young Hegelians, like Marx, even criticizing Feuerbach’s main atheistic thesis: “thought comes from the subject,” not the object.
It is no longer about Heaven to Earth,” said Marx, but now “from earth to heaven,” that is, from the object to the subject, the labor force and the production, to their divinization (of the object, of money, economy, etc.). If, for Marx, fetishization was the separation of labor from his instrument of labor and commodity, fetishization may be reification (res – thing) or objectification for these young “Hegelians”, where he sees the separation between subject and object. , in religious fetishism is the separation of (sinful) consumption of the individual (seen in self-awareness) to which the religious must “attend” and live his “concrete”. The fair relationship with money, work, health and education is only a surpassing of the idealistic religious view, its consummation in a man in harmonious relationship with the world, and in this case also beauty, poetry and life. healthy would have a perspective, for the “pure” religious not. This religiosity lacks an asceticism that in fact “elevates” them, although they seem as linked to contemporary themes, actually has an idealistic god and not pretending to be realistic as they would wish, their concrete is the modern state god their economy, or the positivist law and his narrow view of justice.
The cosmos and divine wrath
05
Mar
The rational / idealistic universe model was of a cosmos working
like a clock, reality and the cosmos showed themselves beyond the idea of the modern ones (the Greek eidos is something else), it showed itself as a quantum model where there is a third included (model Barsarab / Lupasco) and in which time and space are no longer absolute and matter is energy.
Thus, the old harmony model was modified by current physics, called Standard Model Physics which, from particle physics, developed a unified model for the forces acting on matter, including the strong, weak and electromagnetic and gravitational forces unifying them quantum field theory, quantum mechanics and special relativity.
The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson, incorrectly named the God particle assuming that it would be responsible for attributing matter to bodies, this model explained the magnetic attraction of planets, light and the various forms and divided matter into many particles.
After the creation of the universe and its expansion certain laws developed bodies, planets and planetary systems in formation and decline, current studies show the development of stars comes from interstellar gas and cosmic dust and hydrogen that at low temperatures collapse and form molecules that give protostars, these under pressure and rotation form the stars.
In addition to our knowledge, this expanding universe acts in an often surprising way and today we know that not only what happens on the planet has internal but also external influences, solar flares and the approach of celestial bodies for example, in short we are a tiny grain of sand in a much more complex and wandering universe.
This entire celestial body acts with its own harmony and not necessarily as the current laws that we know are thought, so a surprise is always possible, for example, today we are looking for the ninth planet (Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet) that would have an orbit external to the our planetary system and would now be approaching the system, affecting for example the Kuiper Belt, and would have a translational orbit of 14,000 years and there would be other outer bodies of the Solar System.
Within this new logic of the universe, aorganic movements (from the inorganic to organic life) are not only possible but easily explainable, the environment around the biosphere is a living organism and it is within a larger universe and subject to its laws.
What happens in the human sphere also has its unstable and unbalanced balances, so it is no longer possible to think of everything as a “harmony”, in the Cartesian sense, but as what tends to favor the functioning of the universe as a whole and for the which forces tend to push before their own laws and determinations in human eyes may be divine wrath, or “perfect divine harmony”, but different from that explained as a clock movement.
So it is not a Kronos, but a Kairós, “opportune moment” or “right” in the divine perspective in which everything that is at odds collapses and that in human eyes is “wrath of God”, when in reality it is a correction of cosmos governed by its own laws.
The noosphere: from primary matter to complexification.
04
Mar
Teilhard Chardin thus describes the complexification from the
first developments of life, the critical transition from the life of cells to an ultra-complex life:
“We will probably never find out (unless, luckily, the science of tomorrow manages to reproduce the phenomenon in the laboratory) – History alone, in any case, will never directly discover the material traces of this emergence – appearance – of microscopic out of the molecular; from the organic out of the chemical, from the living out of the pre-living. ” (Chardin, 1965, p. 63)
Although it may seem that nature would have done this preparation alone, it draws attention to the essential originality of the cell, producing something entirely new, and composing an organic multiplicity in a minimum space, although the process may have taken years, each cell has long been prepared to be something original.
It will be through discreet but decisive mutations that occurred for thousands and millions of years, that the complexity of cells and living beings began to be formed, making it possible to perceive “the irresistible developments that are hidden in the weakest slowness, the extreme agitation that is hidden under the resting veil, the entirely new that insinuates itself in the monotonous repetition of the same things ”(Chardin, 1965, p. 8).
It was through the complexification of life that the human emerged, in the beginning God made it from inorganic materials, metaphorically the Bible says about clay, but it is certain that the universe was born before.
So the world of physis (Chardin sees physics in the Greek sense of the word) would be linked to biology, and thinks:
“Could we hesitate for a moment to recognize the evident kinship that links, in its composition and aspects, the world of the proto-living to the world of physical chemistry? I mean, are we not yet, in this first stage of life, but at the core, at least on the very edge of ‘matter’? ” (Chardin, 1965, p. 66)
At the birth of human life, after billions of years after the formation of the universe, a great and decisive mutation will occur, the birth of thought and consciousness, and what Chardin calls interiorization, which in religious terms means the individual soul that is also linked to the collective, the principle of association from the first cells.
The thought and the conscience the notion of person develops, this experience was given thanks to the cerebral development of man, and to the developments of what Chardin calls the Noosphere, the last stage after the Biosphere, the creation and development of life.
Developing and explaining the Chardanian cosmogenesis is a long process that not even fully developed in life, many advances in current astrophysics (many discoveries try to explain the origin of life) help understanding, what is important to emphasize is that the evolution panorama cosmos, not just the Earth, is linked to the development of human consciousness and capacity to connect with the harmony of life.
Chardin, T. (1965). O fenomeno humano (Phenomenous Human). BR, São Paulo : Herder.
The first aortic mutation
03
Mar
How exactly life originated is still speculation, one of the most 
elaborate theories was made by Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) Carl Sagan’s first wife, he is famous for the Cosmos series, her theory called Endosymbiosis.
In this theory the mitochondria and chloroplasts become organelles in a cell, the first by chemical energy and the second by photosynthesis, although the theory has never been proven in the laboratory is interesting, Teilhard Chardin called them “chain of carbon molecules” (The phenomenon human) and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) energy-carrying molecule in living beings, there are other theories of course.
Fundamentalists on duty stay calm, also in the Genesis of the Bible is that God made man out of clay and then blew him in the nostrils, so life also appeared at a certain moment (Genesis 2,7), and the previous text says that “but a steam was rising from the earth to water the whole earth ”(Gn 2,6), that steam could well be CO2.
We may never know exactly how this happened, but it is certain that Earth and Nature came before living organisms and certainly after them (or most of them) man appeared, but the aortic mutation did not stop there.
Genetic mutations, although rare can happen, they can cause new genes to appear in a given population, by natural adaptation mechanisms, if certain characteristics are favorable to survival and reproduction in a certain environment, therefore if the environment changes, the mutations can become stable in the new environment.
The land has undergone several environmental changes, and perhaps what we are going through is the one that most deeply affects the stability of the environment, birds and animals have been extinct and forests and natural environments have been devastated, so it is to be expected that some mutation will occur, but it will be the environment is the first to change and react, so natural phenomena can occur.
This takes many years to occur, but suddenly they break in a chain of mutations, as Teilhard Chardin describes it: “the irresistible developments that are hidden in the most sluggish slowness, – the extreme agitation that is hidden under a veil of rest, – the entirely new that insinuates itself within the monotonous repetition of the same things ”(Chardin, 1965, p. 8).
In times of pandemic risks, looking at the universe of cosmogenesis we live in is essential.
CHARDIN, T. (1965). O fenômeno humano (Human Phonomenon) BR, São Paulo : Herder.
Naming elephant and worldview
25
Feb
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, if he citing Dilthey its good news for me, and it is good text.
It says at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the origin of the term Weltanschauung originated with Kant (1724-1804) (amaze idealists!), “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.
