Arquivo para a ‘Antropotécnica’ Categoria
Overworked and true empathy
23
Feb
Always smiling and needing to be happy can be altruism and even heroism of 
many people, which should give us confidence and empathy should be transparency, which is not always empathic. Of course, this does not mean being rude or rude, nor deviation from personality, but the relief of inner dualism in the face of truth, even when it is not sympathetic, makes one have greater internal coherence, which is not confused with identity.
Identity may be personal, group or cultural, sometimes confused with being conniving or convenient, but at the root this is falsehood, so empathy has its place in the face of truth and being, not always the social ethics that dictate rules of convenience. and “legality,” which has come to be called politically correct, but could well be politically convenient.
Since the 1930s, the Brazilian has been spoken of as the “cordial man”, although there is a great anthropological and historical distance from the politically correct, this would not be just the update.
Empathy should then be a good mood in the sense that the ability to calmly get into controversial issues and issues with a strong possibility of polarization, the world today needs this, and therefore confusing it with hypocrisy, easy smile or just tolerance can be “ cordial ”and may not be a true feeling.
The pandemic has made many people bitter, dissatisfied and in a way accentuated individualism, in The partner and the next (Le socius et le prochain), Paul Ricoeur explains this difference in relationship.
In fact, doing to the other what we would like it to do for us, is not the empathic system, what neuroscience shows is that we have a set of neurons called mirror neurons that say that imitating the other is a more natural empathic form than To do something to another simply because we would like it done to us, deep down we are “asking” for something we want.
Empathy means the gift that everyone has to be able to feel what the other feels, so to speak of the Other is the true way of both finding an innate gift of humanity, neuroscience reveals, as well as making this truth explicit, we exist and feel the Other.
We only deny it by denying the self that has empathy as a natural “skill”, just by a constant denial training. There is, therefore, no true self without the Other, without the empathy with the Other, natural and not forced, which is thus made a staging and the Other will feel, empathy is thus ontological, part of Being.
The vídeo of TedX by psyquiatrist Helen Riess is very interesting:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=baHrcC8B4WM
It’s time to change of way
11
Feb
It is not my proposal, but the name of the last book by Edgar
Morin (Editor Bertrand do Brasil, 2020), the almost centenary French philosopher shows the lessons of the coronavirus that we resisted in learning, it is also very similar to the name of Peter Sloterdijk’s book : You have to change your life (publisher Relógio d´Água, 2018) this well before the coronavirus.
Before moving on to some of Morin’s lessons, I want to say that we ALL need to change our lives, the planet has run out, words have run out, polarizing politics runs out, and unfortunately sweet words like “fraternity”, “solidarity”, “compassion” ”And so many others seem to be only the will of some that others change, without, however, that each one changes himself first.
The preamble is a historical retrospective from the Spanish flu to May 68 and the current ecological crisis, the lessons from the coronavirus in chapter 1 I comment on at the end.
I begin at the end to affirm that Morin, who also shares values of fraternity, of planetary citizenship, of overcoming inequalities, etc., has in his book a very clear proposal, after demonstrating that the crisis is prior to the coronavirus that only worsened it , on page 4 sentence “… there are two inseparable requirements for political renewal: to leave neoliberalism, to reform the state” (page 46), which will provide the means in chapter 3.
This is actually your second point in the cap. 2 Post-corona challenges, the challenge of the political crisis, of the nine challenges it points to in current crises: the existential challenge, also pointed out in Pope Francis’ Fratelli Tutti Encyclical, the challenges of crises: globalization, democracy, digital, ecological protection, the economic crisis, uncertainties and the danger of a major setback (pages 44 to 53).
The 15 lessons from the coronavirus: about our existence, isolation shows us how those who “did not have access to the superfluous and the frivolous and deserve to reach the stage where we have the superfluous” live (page 23), on the condition recalls the Meadows report, which pointed to the limits of growth, the lesson about the uncertainty of our life, the lesson of our relationship with death, the lesson about our civilization (life turned outward, without inner life, the life of shopping malls and happy hours), the awakening of solidarity, inequality and social isolation, the diversity of situations and the management of the epidemic, the nature of a crisis, the 9 initial lessons.
The lesson about science and medicine, do we understand “that science is not a repertoire of absolute truths (unlike religion” (page 33), the crisis of intelligence, which he wisely divides into “invisible complexities” the way of knowledge “of human realities (growth rate, GDP, opinion polls, etc.” (page 35), point 2. is the ecology of action, it warns that action can “go in the opposite direction to what is expected and return like a boomerang to the head of the one who decided it” (page 35), how many actions and speeches fell in this ditch.
The twelfth lesson is the inefficiency of the state, which, in addition to neoliberal politics, yields “to pressures and interests that paralyze all reforms” (page 38), while polarization deepens.
The thirteenth lesson is national relocation and dependence, and regrets “that the national problem is so poorly formulated and always reduced to the opposition between sovereignty and globalization” (page 39), note the speeches that polarize and do not leave this circle vicious.
The fourteenth lesson is the crisis in Europe, I remember Sloterdijk’s book “If Europe woke up”, and Morin opens the wound: “on the shock of the epidemic, the European Union broke into national fragments” (page 40) .
The fifteenth lesson is the planet in crisis, quotes Prof. Thomas Michiels, biologist and specialists in virus transmission: “There is no doubt that globalization influences epidemics and favors the spread of the virus. When observing the evolution of past epidemics, there are notable examples in which it is noted that epidemics follow railways and human displacements. There is no doubt, the circulation of individuals aggravates the epidemic ”(page 41).
MORIN, E. (2020) É hora de mudarmos de via: lições do coronavírus, transl. Ivone Castilho Benedetti, collaboration Sabah Abouessalam. Rio de Janeiro, BR: Bertrand do Brasil.
Why an “epoch” is needed
05
Feb
Our whole way of looking at life is filtered by a worldview, a complex
of values, family, social and religious education in a broad sense, that is, we all have some belief, or else we would have the whole explanation of the world about the puzzles nature, man and life. The pandemic could have chaged this worldview.
This “cosmological” view always implies (not nearly) pre-conceptual values, that is, how we classify the world, things and social ways of developing life, this worldview was called by Heidegger Weltanstchauung, the word is important because every translation is inaccurate.
In the ontological aspect that Heidegger drank, there is the phenomenology of Husserl, his teacher, and for him this was “the description of what appears” or “science that has as objective or project that description”, and for him it is itself a concept of method, which Hans Georg Gadamer later developed in “Truth and Method”.
However many drank from Husserl’s phenomenology, each in his own way, Karl Jaspers, Emmauel Levinas, Edith Stein, Jean Paul Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, Hans Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Martin Buber, Nicolai Hartmann, Hans Jonas, and the one who turned it into Hans-Georg Gadamer philosophy.
The open sense of Being in Heidegger extrapolates the socio-political, biological or anthropological fields (for this reason it is ontological, or proper to Being), and the concept of Dasein means to be launched in the world while “ente” are things in different ways, that is, everything we say, feel, understand, behave in the final analysis what we “are”.
If we enter this clearing, the Being is also the one who needs help, healing, listening, a word of acceptance as the Being of the Ent, that is, in his functions as an experience.
Even though biblical exegesis considers all analysis of the sending of Jesus’ disciples to the world closed, go around the world and proclaim the good news and heal the sick, this care for others (in the broad sense of the word “heal”) also means openness, “Epoch” and transcendence.
Go around the world as a new worldview.
The missing future, semi-open dialogues
03
Feb
The idea that we are about to change is in the mouth
of many apocalyptics and until 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, but they want only to hear their own voice.
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
28
Jan
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”.
The eidetic sense of hermeneutics is that which promotes the unification of the internal and the external in the manifestations of life, in the natural sciences the object is seen by itself (returning things for themselves), in the idealistic sciences the “object” is that achieved by a continuous effort of the researcher (the Kantian transcendence), although he commits himself to return to tradition frequently, the whole is not renewed, because the “object” is separated from itself by isolated observation, outside of Being and possible preconceptions, is the “idea”.
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.
Collaboration and ingratitude
21
Jan
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. Even in pandemic period, there is little gratitude.
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.
Financial pandemic covid
18
Jan
The current crisis, which is a health pandemic may have
serious financial consequences, the warning is from World Bank chief economist Carmen Reinhart.
The prolongation of the Covid-19 Pandemic overloads domestic and business economies and evolves into an economic crisis. Reinhart calls this effect “cumulative cost”, explains that there are classic balance sheet problems.
In 2009 he published a book with Kenneth Rogoff, then a Harvard colleague, who analyzed the most recent financial crisis, the book “This time was different: eight centuries of Financial Folly “has become a benchmark for governments for recessions, bank runs and infringement proceedings.
Those who believed in a full return to normality are mistaken, as well as a plan for future pandemics and a co-immunity (concept created by Sloterdijk before of Pandemic), it is necessary to develop a kind of mutualism, that is, relationships that have mutual commitments, where the Other is not uncomfortable but part of the solution.
It must be imagined that this could promote a great change of mentality, this seems almost impossible , but the future of humanity depends on this, and learning must be fast, is one of Sloterdijk’s subjects in “Change Your Life”, written before the pandemic.
The originality of Being in Heidegger
15
Jan
The great question of Being in contemporary
philosophy emerged from the thought of Martin Heidegger, a student of Husserl from which he inherited phenomenology as a method, essentially proposed to penetrate the question of being.
Although it has been studied by philosophy at all times, even Kantian idealism has an ontology that is displaced from Being to the subject, it already existed in Plato as an idea (Platonic eidos is not Kantian) and Aristotle as substance.
The being does not manifest directly, but always with the being of the being, you can play a joke with the contemporaneity that is the sick Being, because the Being of the Being is hidden in appearance.
One can seek pure Being in an ethereal existence of a God, but it is the existential door through man that one has access to Being, in this case Heidegger is applying the phenomenological method, he departs from man in fact (not idealized by example), let it manifest itself as it is and only then try to understand it in its manifestation after the presence.
Its first existence is being-in-the-world, one of the most widely accepted translations for Dasein, but as this being is also a Being-in-Situation, Heidegger’s careful reading can clarify this, I make a translation of being-being itself. – in the world, because Heidegger also uses the worldview (Weltanstchauung), which is open to the world and the cosmos, including the worldview.
This concept is important for Heidegger’s understanding of Being because it means this worldview as the circle of beliefs, affects, interests, and even philosophical concepts that Being has, even if it does not study philosophy, Being is “being-in-a-situation” that It does not mean just place or even context, but the very vision one sees in seeing the world, its “worldview”.
So many ideas and beliefs seem obvious to a person, but practically all of them are tied to temporal situations and thus limited by the “situation” in avise, that does not exclude thinking e the life.
This “abode” as an asceticism is described in the passage where the disciples ask the Rabbi (teacher), where He lives (Jn 1,38-39) and he said “Come and see”, they went and stayed with Him that day, where is your address?
Between the eternal and the temporal
07
Jan
There is no dualism between body and mind, as the
idealists want, the mind exists in a body and interacts with it, there is what is temporal and what is eternal, if not in a strict sense at least in the broad sense, principles are needed to determine the values and what guide humanity in critical times of society, and the spiritual helps.
Byung Chul Han, in a January lecture at the Barcelona CCB where he showed the tearing of our time between narcissism, self-consumerism and an absence of relationship with the other, which must revolutionize time, or the way we manage it.
He said of the other and in reference to the universities: “In any case, we live in a time of radical conformism: the university has clients and only creates workers, it does not form spiritually; the world is at the limit of its capacity; maybe that will short circuit it and we get that original animal back. ”
He stated at the Barcelona CCB: “The current acceleration diminishes the ability to remain: we need a proper time that the productive system does not allow us to have; we need some free time, which means standing still with nothing productive to do, but not to be confused with recovery time to keep working; time worked is time lost, not time for us. ”
Modern humanism criticized by his master Peter Sloterdijk who asserts this sense back to the original animal, of course, is not in the sense of wild animality, but the idea that he must regain his relationship with nature will not be saved and will even condemn planet. Sloterdijk clearly outlines these ideas in the video below.
What the natural man means and his relations with the eternal, now not only nature, but in a worldview of paradise and eternal life, means that we must look at remaining values.
When questioned by the Sadducees, who were a more aristocratic class in Judaism, about who a woman who would marry several brothers after their deaths, would tell them that believing in eternal life means that the people will no longer die, Jesus response the question would not make sense and also that God is “God of the living” (Luke 20:38).
Looking only at temporal values and conjunctural situations prevents us from seeing the future and the eternal.
Follows Peter Sloterdijk’s interview on the braziliam program Fronteiras do Pensamento *“Borders of Thought”).
Three books (or 4)to read in 2021
06
Jan
I always propose to read some books in the year that begins, 
differently this year I feel more stimulated by the romance-fiction that inspired the film “O midnight sky” the book that is being translated into Portuguese by Lily Brooks -Dalton, is a reinterpretation of a collapsed land that has already appeared in other fictions such as Interstellar (2014), Gravity (2014) and the epic Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and Ad Astra (2019).
The second book is “Praise the Earth” by Byung Chul Han, it explores its oriental character almost of love for plants, of care, praise and gratitude, it is a garden that was given to the author for this care, making known another face of a writer, the synthetic and realistic relationship with nature.
He explores the rhythms and relationships of aromas with nature, exploring the subtlety of plants and flowers, which is an invitation to contemplation.
The third book is by Peter Sloterdijk (I already ordered the book) You must change your life, whose edition in Portuguese is from the publisher Relógio d´Água.
Peter Sloterdijk developed a philosophy from the book Rules for the human park, deepened in Critique to Cynical Reason and in the 3 volumes of his spheres (I only read the first, the others do not have a Portuguese version), in which he fights a battle against a failed humanism.
In this work You must change your life (in Germany it was launched in 2009, in Portugal last year) the philosopher takes up the question in which he seeks an anthropology in a non-literary or enlightenment dimension of the context of life, in an interview with Fronteiras do Pensamento, in 2016, stated about his anthropotechnics (the central theme of this book), he defines the human being not as creativity, but as a repetition of creativity.
He said in the interview: “the French word répétition expresses repetition at the same time, putting on stage actions that we have already produced, and the exercise that prepares a performance, a performance. Think of a musical or artistic repetition, making and repeating are terms that in French – unlike what happens in German – converge.
And it is exactly on this convergence that the work of anthropotechnics is concentrated”.
A fourth option is possible, the book of logotherapy by Viktor Frankl The meaning of life, its is widely read in Brazil.
