RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘’ Categoria

For a spiritual ascesis

18 Oct

What we see beyond the crisis and cultural night, beyond a deep social crisis without a thought that catalyses the real forces of society that point to the future, is also a night of God, educator Martin Buber describes it as God’s Eclipse.
Buber wrote in his book: “I later built for myself the meaning of the word ‘mismatch’, through which was roughly described the failure of a true encounter between human beings. When, after another 20 years, I saw my mother, who had come to visit me, my wife, and my children from afar, I couldn’t look into her still astonishingly beautiful eyes without hearing the word “mismatch” somewhere as if it were. tell me.
I suppose that everything I have experienced over the course of my life about the authentic encounter has its first origin at that time in the gallery. ”(BUBER, 1991, p. 8). Thus revealing the true face of the “silence of God” of Judaism in which it has its roots, will be in another book the “I-Thou” where he will reveal an aspect of his asceticism which is “the encounter with the Other”, which for Buber more. than one person, your Tu has a divine essence, God inhabits the other.
These days there are two strong tendencies, and in both asceses there is in fact no spirituality beyond transcendence, or the activism that Byung Chul condemns as the “active vita” that leads to tiredness, or the idealistic subjectivism that can It seems to be religion but it is not, what it arouses is nothing but sentimentality, and can lead to “faithful” tears, not necessarily to God, if they do discover Him they must seek another true asceticism.
Thus it is possible that they will find God in one way or another, but there is no other way to remain in the faith, not of the blind but of those who have found a clearing, if indeed meditation and prayer are to remain, they are indispensable.
For those who have no faith, a good reading, separating passages and thoughts, living the moment as we wrote in the previous post, is fundamental, that is, also for reading can follow the rule of doing it without “gluttony”, try put the soul in silence, making a true “epoché”.
To those who believe always reflect that Jesus prayed, and asked his disciples to pray with him, and not to lose this practice, Jesus will tell the parable of the bad judge who does not want to attend the widow, but by his insistence and so that she does not. he curses, he answers, says the opening passage: “Jesus told the disciples a parable to show them the need to pray always, and never give up…”, which is in Luke 18: 1.
BUBER, Martin. (1995) Eclipse de Dios. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1995.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Perfectionism and true righteousness

27 Sep

Idealism has created a form of humanism and “rights and duties” that have little or nothing to do with Being and true human needs and concerns.
According to novelist Anne Larnott (translated to Portuguese only Word for word): “Perfectionism is a form of cold and bad idealism, while messes are the artist’s true friend”, I think she meant what appears to be an imperfection or a “Mess” as she wrote, but that’s only human.
Three factors can lead to perfectionism becoming a “borderline” syndrome, as psychologists call it, making the distinction or quality of the Other unacceptable, but also making “human” or “normal” pathological defects that can lead to despair, and, perhaps worst of all, the still little realized that is contempt for the Other, especially for the humblest people, for vanity and pride.
Other aspects such as communication, harmony in order to have the environments around us more integrated with our Being, the adoption of a spirituality (it has become dangerous because religiosity has also acquired pathologies, care must be taken) and what should be future of humanity, but there are already signs, that is the sharing of resources and talents in order to produce self-sustaining and healthy goods and consumption.
There are several currents that can help from the point of view of ‘elaboration of thought’, one of the serious shortcomings of idealism has been to separate practical from theoretical, and the reinvention of dialectic (in Hegel in particular) has badly solved this problem, phenomenology has reinvented hermeneutics to return to the “thing itself” and to take back the “Lebenswelt” (Husserl), the philosophy of life.
The three parables in the 16th chapter of Luke, misunderstood and read, are not one work that makes the connection between them, namely that of the returning son (called the prodigal son), that of the unfaithful steward (called dishonest or clever). and the one that complements the three, which is the death of Lazarus, the poor man who lived from the leftover table of the rich man who, when dying, goes to his father’s bosom, while the rich man goes to the “region of the dead, in the midst of torment”. (Lc 16.23).
They are complementary and point out three essential aspects: the son who is in his father’s house, does not accept the returning brother, the unfaithful steward cannot be faithful in a short while (this is not perfectionism, but training for honesty) and finally this parable of the rich and Lazarus, who shows that he is in “hell” not the one who has little or nothing, but the rich.
It makes us think, and there should be a connection between the three, for contextualization and a non-fundamentalist reading of the bible, to love the “imperfect” brother who returns or apologizes, to be faithful in the “little” and to love and respect the poor and humbleness, it seems. simple, for some theologians not.

 
 

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.

 

The unspiritualized asceticism

23 Sep

Not a phrase of any theologian, not even of a religious person, is the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, who besides being one of the most read and controversial of our time, had and has had enormous influence on Byung Chull Han, author well known for many works, but perhaps his main work is “The Society of Tiredness,” Sloterdijk coined “despiritualized asceticism.
It is in his book “You can change your life” not yet published in Portuguese, besides a well done sentence, after all he also works immunology, a life of exercises, which is one of the characteristics of modern man, I do not have a spiritual exercise If you do it systematically and consciously, you indulge in “exercises” to find immunology.
I also found, I was actually expecting this because it is a consequence of his thinking, a worldview, in an interview and not in books, I read his sentence: “Ancient philosophy did not place the accent on the rationality of the world, but on the need to conduct a life regulated according to cosmic prescriptions of being: his concern was above all ethical “.
He hoped because his book “Critic of Cynic Reason” is blunt and even difficult.
He explains in this interview his main concept which is the anthropotechnique: “the beginning of my book, I spoke mainly of repetitions”.
The critical point in the history of civilization is, in my view, represented by the emergence of explicit exercises: the human being, as such, lives in repetition and gives form and content to his life through a more or less conscious ritualism, made up of exercises. repetitive”, so ritualism is part of human life, but spirituality is not.
Sloterdijk’s “spirituality” is not imbued with religiosity, since it is increasingly linked to financial, political and even ideological appeals, the true form of change that the world, and man himself needs, is one capable of revalue life, the Being itself and depends on an inner action.
Says Sloterdijk in the interview, contrary to the categorical imperative upon which the current idealistic asceses move: “The imperative that I propose is, on the contrary, a transforming imperative: human beings sensitive to their appeal should start working on themselves”.
To live is to prepare oneself, to transform oneself, to access the status of the wise, to respond to the vertical tension that requires modifying one’s existence”.
The emptying of Being, a project of contemporary idealism is empty of spirituality, its appeals to ethics, go through the construction of power, what Foucault called biopower, and what Chull Han, Sloterdijk’s disciple says, has now moved to psycho-power, a form of “control” by an excess of bad information in the idealistic sense.

 

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.

 

 

Idealism: back to the pre-Socratic

18 Sep

Karl Popper knew, the Vienna circle knew, and Husserl knew that to discuss the contemporary crisis it was necessary to return to idealism, the great foundation of contemporary Enlightenment, but Popper’s thesis goes deeper than we should return to the pre-Socrates.

Both Wittgenstein and Popper are known to have their connections with the Vienna Circle questioned, as a thought, but as an influence they certainly brought the questioning root of logical positivism in general, and of conventional Kantism in particular, a critique of idealism and enlightenment. resulting from it due to the detected crisis of science.

Both speak of a return to cosmology, although Popper claims “the Tractatus was a cosmological (albeit crude) treatise and because his theory of knowledge was closely linked to cosmology” (Popper, 2014, p. 2), rather than linguistic philosophy, as many of Wittgenstein’s readers suppose, clippings are always complicated.

He will explain that “specialization may be a temptation for the scientist… for the philosopher, it is a sin” (idem), but unfortunately it has happened, philosophy is now a “department” as if the other sciences did not do it implicitly (or explicitly by bad practices) his theories.

Ironic with the Baconian spirit, he was the first in modern science to appeal to empiricist “practice,” and Popper claims all science (I would say almost every thought except the refusal to think that it is more serious): “every science starts from the observation and then, slowly and cautiously, moves towards the theory ”(Popper, 2014, p. 3), the curious thing is that they use Popper himself to affirm this, poor reading, the mediocracy of“ illiteracy ”. secondary”.

His thesis is that rationality departed from Tales of Mileno and the Ionian school, and quotes it verbatim from the fragment [15]: “that the earth is sustained by water upon which it moves like a boat. If we say there is an earthquake, the earth is being shaken by the movement of the water ”(Popper, p. 4), amazed rationalism was born along with earth moving.

Compatible with the Baconian myth, Popper states in the following passage: “The purpose of the Baconian myth is to explain why scientific statements are true, indicating that observation is the“ true origin ”of our scientific knowledge” (idem), of course, he questions. This and its purpose is to unveil the idealistic building from antiquity.

Who is going to question Tales’s idea is Anaximander in suggesting the earth as a drum, but supported by nothing, in Popper’s quote from the fragment [A 11]: “… it is supported by nothing, but remains stationary because it is equally distant of all other things.

Its shape is […] like that of a drum […]. We walk on one of its plant surfaces, while the other is on the opposite side. ”(Cit. POPPER, 2014, p. 4).

It states shortly afterwards “it made possible Aristarchus and Copernicus’ theories.” (Idem), but her idea was bold because it was about seeing the Earth freely suspended in the middle of space, and perhaps by observation, there were oceans of all ages.

On the other hand, Tales’s idea seemed natural. It is from there and from Xenophanes that Popper will build the cosmology of Parmenides, his disciple, where immutable reality, the immobile Earth is presented as a kind of logical proof (Popper, 2014, p. 14), where his idea will come from. from the one, from the undivided from a single premise, “that which is not is not,” where nothing, that which is not, does not exist. In this world full of Parmenides, there is no room for movement, this is its cosmology, which is what we refer to from the preface, when Popper stated that there is no ontology in it.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.

 

Idealisms and science

17 Sep

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were marked by scientific, technical achievements due to the Industrial Revolution, with a world-wide expanding and flourishing trade, which gave rise to confidence that humanity seemed to flourish and history ruled by Reason, as the Enlightenment alike triumph.

With few dissonant voices, Kierkegaard first and then Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the rest seemed to flow in a full and satisfying turn, the colonies were not spoken, and the Arab and Eastern world seemed to submit to the Western order, but there was something to disturb the colonial struggles. and the danger of war, which would see its outbreak in the 19th century. The science that seemed to do so much had an Achilles heel, had not yet solved the problem of social disputes, not only that which subjected workers and colonies, but especially the trade wars and disputes that came to subject the defeated.

It was the exacerbation of nationalism, which now returns, the trade war between nations, now between the US and China, but also between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that made the first to be called war of war, with 10 million dead. Amid the two wars emerged the Vienna Circle, neopositivism and neologicism, among several other names a prominent scientific name was Karl Popper, among others, such as Godel, Carnap, Hans Kelsen and Moritz Schlick.

In the scientific field besides Husserl who criticizes the method, Popper will also propose that the positivist inductive method presented itself to science as a volatile knowledge, which could not guarantee anything about the constancy of observed facts, and it is not possible to affirm that any assumption is the truth. with absolute precision, what Heisenberg physics already said.

But his return to Parmenides is more essential, where idealism began, and there is its ontological root: ‘being is’ and ‘non-being is not’, there is no contradiction or third hypothesis.

By stating in the previous post the return to root, it will not be in its heyday of German idealism, or even Hegel’s sacralization, Marx will say that there are new against old Hegelians, but in the origin we will find something essence to the idealism and enlightenment described by Karl Popper .

In the book “The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment” (Popper, 2014) that we find several pearls of idealistic foundations, the first in the preface by editor Arne Friemuth Petersen, he states that he gave the lecture quoting “To be or not Of Hamlet, to which Popper himself interrupted, stating more or less this:

“You see, Parmenides was neither a language analyst nor an ontologist, but a cosmologist. Your “Being” has nothing to do with ontology. ”(Popper, XIII, 2014).

I was also amazed to read this right from the preface to the book that speaks of the worldview at the origin of idealism and also of the Enlightenment, not only in Parmenides, but according to Popper himself also in Xenophanes cosmology and Parmenides epistemology (page XV). , which comes to clarify a non-rational origin, as one might suppose, he will propose that Heraclitus (everything changes) and Parmenides (nothing changes) “were reconciled and combined in modern science” (p. XX), and thus faces of it. currency.

In the notes of the Brazilian post-impression, fragments found after printing, there are several notes by Popper, the seventh that says: “Historical hypothesis: Tales is the inventor of the rational discussion method”, new surprise, but the Enlightenment was born there. back.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.

 

 

Mediocracy and ignorance

16 Sep

Mediocracy is one that brings “middle” knowledge above all, always has a ready opinion, based on “doxa” never in epistemy, and if it has episteme (much of classical epistemology this is) it is a set of rules and schemes that treat an object but ignore its fundamentals.
Shortly after World War II, it was Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull who developed this, and I was glad to see the quote in daily El Pais, which is: “systemic processes [that] enable those with average levels of competence to rise to positions. of power, driving both the supercompetent and the totally incompetent out of their way, ”can be seen in schools, political and religious groups where“ rebels ”are dismissed.
Also now Youtubers who speak of politics, philosophy and even theology, are many theologians of apocalypse and puritanism of false morals, while good readings and deepening are dispensed with on any subject.
But El País newspaper cites an author and a principle he did not know, “the secondary illiterate,” an expression coined by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, who uses this for people who have a wealth of useful knowledge that, however, does not lead him to question the intellectual foundations that produced that knowledge.
I insisted with my students and in various posts here the discussion of the foundations, especially of idealism and enlightenment that guide much of the reasoning and the “best minds” of this “secondary illiteracy”, make catch phrases, judge context by isolated facts, or refer to some extraordinary theoretical principle, generally know only the principle and not the text from which it originated, they take away unprepared minds and hearts, eager for something new.
I have not, never had, and never intend to exhaust the fundamentals, but we must go in search of these, warns Edgar Morin in the book “In Search of the Lost Fundamentals”, the great architect of the complexity method, applauded but badly read.
Also reading the novels, it is possible that some have read Stendhal, Balzac, Tolstoy, and even more contemporary Albert Camus, or Oscar Wilde’s “Portrait of Dorian Gray,” but few know or read a worthy representative of Generation X, Bret Easton Ellon, or Paul Auster who wrote “In the Land of Last Things” showing a sober future of valuelessness, unrestrained consumption and a constant search for death or whatever. This is not an exercise in arrogance, without naming names I see successful authors (perhaps cites Paulo Coelho) who sell millions of books and that the time spent reading this is the same to read something that speaks more about the contemporary world and its realities. Haruki Murakami, for example, explains why young people feel tortured, is a Nobel candidate. But all this is not new, to take apart the easy speech of… now with the new media… Robert Musil, in “The Young Törless,” speaks of cruelty as he moves into adulthood at a military school, where he learns cruelty. , morality and sexuality. His is the phrase used in the quoted report from El País: “If stupidity […] did not perfectly resemble progress, skill, hope and improvement, no one would want to be stupid,” said this before World War I. World, almost a prophecy.