RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘’ Categoria

The eschatological infinity

26 Nov

Transcendence as an idea of ​​the Infinite can be understood in Lévinas’ philosophy as “The presence of a being that does not enter the sphere of the Same, a presence that exceeds it, fixes its’ status” of infinity, this is how the idea will appear in Lévinas of Foreigner and there he in his own eschatology.

The term Foreigner is typical of the biblical tradition from which Emmanuel Lévinas feeds, as many feed on Greek mythology, it is present in the fourfold prophet Isaiah, a prophet as in the mode of the celebrated Greek poets Homer and Hesiod, is curious because it can if Lévinas’s part sees a convergence between Hellenic and Semitic culture, contrary to all fury against Judeo-Christian culture.

The quadratics are as follows: the poor (who have no economic resources), the widow (who has no husband to support her), the orphan (who has no shelter to collect him), the foreigner (who has no country to step on) . they are the synthesis of what we now call and excluded in biblical times, and we can see in a new “philosophical” eschatology by Lévinas the idea of ​​an eschatological “end” not as the end of time, but the end of poverty, of female helplessness (today more serious is femicide), the organs of wars and foreigners who walk around the world and which Bauman comes to irony (amazement) and then a new apocalypse.

It is thus that the infinite and the being-for-death can also have an eschatological interpretation, without any prejudice or presumption to the religious sense that may at some point occur, and from which the planet is not exempt, after all an eschatological end present in many non-Christian religions is what the earth itself (the mother-earth) rebels against, again a convergence with biblical prophecies.

The big reason why this idea was almost abolished in modernity, Leibniz already claimed it, is said by Lévinas: “My life and history do not form totality. The common that allows us to speak of objectified society, and by which man resembles the thing and individualizes himself as a thing, is not first ”(in Ethics and Infinite), and Lévinas will define this process as“ infinity ”(perhaps a better translation would be infinitation, but they did not translate this way), an inversion of modern subjectivity, because the subject is subjecting himself to Other, and thus lives his personal “in process” eschatology, subject to the Infinite.

On the social scale it is the foreigner, the poor and the one who suffers some kind of prejudice (the racist, for example, but there are others including the religious) and with this we are heading towards an authentic eschatological end, an apocalypse of the current world without brake and without a safe direction for all humanity.

 

Eschatology and being-to-death

24 Nov

Where we came from and where we are going, each culture has its own eschatology, modernity and especially idealism is characterized by disregarding the idea of ​​the infinite, of mystery and consequently of death, seen as fatality or simple finitude of life.

From the philosophy of Lévinas (Totality and Infinite) to the poetry of Goethe (Faust), from the novel by Tolstoy (The death of Ivan Ilitch) to the ontology of Heidegger (Being and Time) death is more than a concept or a theme, it is the own questioning of being, in Lévinas the infinite is proper to the transcendent being as transcendent, the infinite is the absolutely other, so one cannot think of the infinite, the transcendent, the Foreigner (in Lévinas) as being an object, but as an Other that does not it is something other than Being.

Idealism, in wanting to always live above the real, wants to ignore or “transcend” death (in the false sense of an object) and for this reason is quibble about it, but in the face of the tragedies of a pandemic, of a crisis that can become civilizing, he is immobilized or part of psychology, in this field there is also an adequate phenomenological treatment, after all Franz Brentano father of social psychology reopened phenomenology in modern times, the psychiatrist Kübler-Ross (About death and dying, Martins Fontes, 2002) studied that stage of the disease in which the patient asks “Why me” and deepened the theme.

The analysis in Heidegger, in order not to be superficial, must address three related themes: Care, Impersonality and silence, otherwise it is the analysis that we call epistemology or incomplete eschatology, since they face only pessimism in the face of death, nor the good psychology sees it that way.

Before a clarification, the term ontological refers to questioning the fact of existing, Dasein (being-there) is not only, but has a perception that it is, for phenomenology, it is not thought of itself first and then in the world, because the two things are inseparable, and so is an ontological epistemology.

To help what this being-there is, we need to deepen what Heidegger calls overcoming the factual world, and as for the super the world of impersonality, he manages to free himself from a structured reason endowed with meaning, in a way already given the to exist and to be.

Safranski, an authorized biographer of Heidegger, interprets it this way: “Anguish does not tolerate another god besides itself, and isolates in two ways. It breaks the relationship with the other, and makes the isolated individual fall out of relations of familiarity with the world ”, she is felt by the“ fall ”, by the dark horizon.

Thus, in impersonality, the idea of ​​“everyone dies” is abandoned, which in life evades being-for-death, for its thinking about its solitary death, falls into that anguish described in Ivan Ilitch de Tolstoi.

Regarding Care, Heidegger appropriates the Greek fable in which Jupiter and Care that is shaping clay fight over the name that will be given to the created figure, and called Saturn as a judge he says that Jupiter will belong to the spirit because it was he who gave it the form, while Care will have the land, since it formed it, the German philosopher will use this sense, very ingenious, to say the being-for-death to find something beyond the finitude of the form.

Finally, the aspect of silence nad loneliness are invoked to discover the self, and then to return to the world already master of itself, and open to the relationship with others, which is no longer utilitarian ( so characteristic of idealists) or even by means of fixed guidelines (characteristic of incomplete eschatologies), there is thus a Being beyond the finite and open to the infinite, there is no pessimism, which says it is bad reading

 

 

Happiness from beatitude, purity and love

30 Oct

All contemporary argument about happiness when it does not go down to the bottom of barbarism, is to link it to consumption, material goods and pleasure.

That is why beatitude has distanced itself from happiness, although in the western roots of classical antiquity (Eudaimonia) it is common, in “Ethics to Nicomachus” Aristoteles establishes: “As for his name, the majority is practically in agreement: happiness calls him, both like educated people, assuming that being happy consists of living well and being successful ”, but clarifies in another point that it is not wealth:“ Life (…) dedicated to trade is against nature, and it is evident that wealth is not the good we seek; in fact, it exists only for profit and is a means to something else ”, but at this point it will say that it is pleasure.

The question arises as to what is the end of this search, whether it is success, honor, recognition, in the end what we perceive is that “If, in fact, the good were one and predicable in general, and subsisted separately, it is evident that it would not be achievable or achievable by man; but that is precisely what we seek ”, what is this end.

In any eschatology we perish and if death is only a tragic and final end, it would be good to make the most of this life and even values ​​such as honor and success would be worthless, only if these resulted in the end of “pleasure”, and not it is then humility, compassion and participating in the happiness of others are beatitudes that also result in our own happiness.

Thus, those who seek only their own happiness in no way favor their own since they have no occasion to share and selfish pleasure is only partial happiness. hedonists try to deny it, but those who really experience it guarantee that there is a balanced and always present happiness, joy and peace for those who practice it.

The Sermon on the Mount is a classic for those who believe and may well serve as a meditation for those who seek effective and full happiness:

the poor in spirit

those who cry

the humble ones

those who are hungry and thirsty for justice

the merciful the pure in heart

the peacemakers

those persecuted for the sake of justice

For these will be comforted, they will receive the land as an inheritance, they will be fed up with the justice that will finally be achieved, they will have mercy and will be called “children of God”, for those who believe in the greatest beatitude, it was the central and eschatological truth announced for all the humanity.

History will either go there or we will have a crisis process much bigger than the current pandemic, than the horrific cycles of war, and not be happy.

 

 
 

Affliction and anguish

29 Oct

Those who have read The Being and Time attentively know that one of Heidegger’s important responses is what should be read in Kierkgaard were quick to witness the celebrated response of a thinker considered to be one of the most eminent philosophers of contemporary times.

It is, therefore, Heidegger himself who Kierkegaard separating him into so-called “edifying” teachings that would be more important than “theoretical” ones, except in one case that is anguish, in his treatise The concept of anguish, and that the “the forest philosopher” is keen to say that “from an ontological point of view” it remains “entirely tributary to Hegel and ancient philosophy seen through him”. (HEIDEGGER, 2012, p. 651, n. 6).

What Heidegger saw in this 1844 book, whose authorship is attributed to Vigilius Haufniensis, a Kierkegaardian pseudonym that translates as “Copenhagen Watcher”, since Kierkegaard was Danish and his first intention is to return Socratic wisdom, which for him contemplative knowledge (theory) with practical knowledge (phrónesis), the way of ancient Greek.

Although he called Socrates a “practical philosopher, he just wanted to focus the“ anguish ”dressing on the experience of what was reflected by the soul and this meant an approximation of psychology, it was“ the doctrine of the subjective spirit ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 25), was one of the branches of Philosophy, and of a really dialectical philosophy in the Greek-Socratic sense since modern philosophy has fixed itself on the Kantian dualism thesis versus antithesis with an improbable synthesis.

The philosopher uses the expression “hereditary sin”, used by the author throughout the work, but as the one that corresponds to what theologians, called by him “dogmatic”, call the original sin, nomenclature apart, is the aspect that brings his theme closer to the anguish of that “soul” affliction, which can have a philosophical and psychological outline, but which is basically that affliction of those who feel outside a center, from a clear perspective of overcoming anguish.

What leads existence to a singular way, to a way of acting in such a way? This is where the notions of freedom and anguish emerge as “concepts” converge to this “anguish”, but without having a locus, neither in Aesthetics, in Metaphysics or even in Psychology, so the author does not say so, but there is something afflicted and tragic in this journey in this “anguish”.

Paul Ricoeur, reflecting on these expressions of Kierkegaard, establishes that evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason, recalls Ricoeur (1996, p. 16), referring to the Kierkegaardian reflections, evil is “what is the most opposite to the system”, precisely because it is absurd and scandalous, irrational and incomprehensible, situated on the margins of morality and reason.

Ricoeur thus differentiates structural evil (we have already made a post), linked to anguish and sin and free will linked to personal decisions in the face of anguish.

The point that I consider essential in Kierkegaard’s thought on this existential aspect is that “only what has crossed the anguish of possibility, only this one is fully trained not to be distressed, not because it evades the horrors of life, but because they always become weak compared to those of possibility ”(KIERKEGAARD, 2010, p. 165-166), it is here that affliction can find its opposite and we can understand that there is a source of comfort in it.

Thus anguish and affliction are not exactly curses or sinful states or diseases of the “soul” or thoughts, they are phases of rupture or transition to other more mature phases when this stage involves reflection and overcoming.

 

HEIDEGGER, Martin (1957) Ser e tempo. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2012. (Multilíngues de Filosofia Unicamp). JOLIVET, Régis. As doutrinas existencialistas: de Kierkegaard a Sartre. Portugal, Porto: Tavares Martins.

KIERKEGAARD, Sören (2010). O conceito de angústia: uma simples reflexão psicológico-demonstrativa direcionada ao problema dogmático do pecado hereditário de Vigilius Haufniensis. Tradução e notas Álvaro Luiz Montenegro Valls. 2. ed. Brazil, Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.

 

 

What makes love loved

23 Oct

Hannah Arendt sought in Augustine of Hippo for her answers to Love, brought great contributions in the philosophical field to the theme, far beyond the classic division of the Greeks: agape, eros and filia; but as the contemporary philosopher Julia Kristeva observed, she went no further than the philosopher Augustine, for there is also the theologian.

In addition to the intelligent division of her doctoral thesis: “Love in Saint Augustine”, Arendt herself emphasized the philosophical character of the work of the Bishop of Hipona, by emphasizing: “he never completely lost the impulse of philosophical questioning” (Arendt, 1996), his bases of Cicero, Plato and Plotinus are noticeable in his work.

Arendt’s choice to divide his dissertation into three parts is due to a willingness to do justice to Augustinian thoughts and theories that run in parallel. So each part “will serve to show three conceptual contexts in which the problem of love plays a decisive role.”

She also realizes the importance of Amor Caritas, but as she sees it is not theological, but only within human possibilities, Julia Kristeva when talking about Love goes further by stating: “love is the time and space in which ´I´ give myself the right to be extraordinary“, while Arendt is clear that there is a difference between Caritas and Cupiditas, who loves the world, the things of the world.

But the question of Augustine that must also be answered by Christians is what “do I love when I love my God?” (Confessions X, 7, 11 apud Arendt p. 25), the fifth essence of my interior, it is true as Augustine thought that I find in me what connects me to eternity, but there is beyond the fifth essence or Other outside, not just God , but that Other that passes by me, the one whose identity is hidden in the human envelope of the Other that has God in him too.

What I love when I love God, is thus extended to Love humanity, concrete in each Other that I relate to, and is beyond the fifth essence of my “I”.

So Caritas is the extraordinary in me, both Arendt, Kristeva and Augustine himself are right in part, but the God I love is now also present in the Other, which is beyond my mirror and beyond my inner essence.

Perhaps the biggest trap made for Jesus by the Pharisees is in the question, after Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, it was in the question (Mt 22,36) “Master, what is the greatest commandment of the Law?”, And Jesus will answer (Mt 22, 37-39): “Jesus replied:“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your understanding!’ That is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is similar to this: ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’ ”, and concludes that this is the synthesis of the entire Law and of the prophets.

Hannah Arendt quotes this passage, but the sequence is clear you will love with all courage and soul, theological aspects and then with understanding, the philosophical.

However, the updated question is this of Augustine: “What do I love when I say that I love God?” and if the answer is also “The neighbor as yourself”, that is, with its inner essence directed to the Other, it means that I cannot say that I really love Love, which comes from God, if it is not the Love caritas.

Arendt, Hannah. (1996) Love and Saint Augustine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Figure: Textures and acrylic on canvas. January, 2018. Eva-sas Gallery.
 

Digital transformation beyond Buzzword

21 Oct

We alerted and problematized in the 10 years of this blog the transformation that was being led by digital changes, social, educational, industrial and even behavioral aspects, most of the skeptics reacted, mocked or despised a real change that was happening.

The pandemic has shown that more than necessary tools can build bridges, establish new relationships, energize companies and avoid wasting time, money and especially in these times, endangering health.

Now everyone lives in the digital reality, companies have survived through online services, families, social groups, public services and meetings of various types depend on digital tools, shows depend on lives, meetings or posts on social media tools.

A buzzword emerged very strongly called the “digital transformation”, but the danger of opportunism is great for companies and sites that exploit and mystify these services and charge dearly for it, so some concepts are necessary, first what happens differently in generation Z of previous call of millennials, those who were born at the beginning of the millennium, therefore before the year 2000, which is now 22 to 37 years old.

The millenials followed the evolution of the Web (the pages, websites and blogs), they were born in a reality in which computers were an appliance, so they were only used at home and optionally at school, while generation Z through cell phones took the digital world to everywhere, create chat groups and behave differently with the credibility of websites, blogs and media networks, create their own relationships and idols, in general different from everything that is known.

Although more closed and with a tendency to have little social relationship, they are more critical than millennials, who are more anxious, more efficient and more demanding.

Thus, relations with the market are very different, they return to prefer shopping in physical stores and select well what they buy, less impulsive and already have the technology with excellent support, although very connected they already know the limits of technology.

Major economics magazines like Forbes and Fortune have done generation Z analyzes to understand the necessary market transformation, Forbes says it represents 25% of the current world population, digital is a natural part of their lives, like TV and the radio of past generations, while Fortune claims that 32 of generation Z are striving for a job of their dreams and rule out taking on any job, although temporarily accepted to lift the future.

Thus the old CRMs (Customer Relationship Management) do not work and many criticisms and analyzes made for the millennial generation are outdated.

According to Kasey Panetta, a researcher at Gartner, 5 new concepts are emerging: Composite architectures, agile and responsive architectures, Algorithmic trust, products, links, websites and reliable transactions, Beyond silicon, the limits of Moore’s law of the evolution of computers, now technologies smaller and more agile are sought, Formative Artificial Intelligence (AI) adaptation to the client, customization of services, times and location, and the Digital Me concept, a kind of passport to the digital world, tools and websites that already know the client and their needs, forms of behavior and preferences.

So the entire digital universe that seemed stable is also going to collapse and much of what is called “digital transformation” is just a digital mystification.

Panetta, Kasey. 5 Trends Drive the Gartner Hyper Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2020. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/5-trends-drive-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2020, Access: September 15, 2020

 

Plato’s banquet

06 Oct

At banquets, tables and food sharing celebrate many things, including dialogue on essential topics.

Occurring around 380 BC it is a dialogue, and there are some who prefer the translation of Greek as Symposium (in ancient Greek sympotein means “to drink together”), and the central theme is Love, between eros and agape, and the central character as in most of his dialogues are Socrates.

Also in the dialogue Aristophanes and Ágaton (or Agatão), in his house there had been a previous banquet in celebration of the literary prize he had won, in this banquet Socrates and other participants spoke about “love”, Apolodoro and Glaucon, Aristodemo and Agaton himself.

Glaucon considers Apolodoro as crazy because he despises the material, Ágaton means “good” in Greek, good things and love lead to the practice of good and beautiful, and if we knew the practice of love the good it does, men would make an army of lovers, reminiscent of the army of banos, whose front was Pelopidas and Epaminondas in 371 BC

Phaedrus’ speech is that the love worshiped by men reveals them to be more virtuous and happier during life and after death, but it is in cosmogony that the speeches will oppose, while Phaedrus sees the origin of Eros as a very ancient god, without mention of parents, he was born next to Geia (land) after Chaos.

Pausanias the second to speak, contrary to Phaedrus, there are several Eros, he was the son of Aphrodite, and two Aphrodites, a daughter of Uranus and another of Zeus, that of Zeus generates vulgar eros and that of Uranus a heavenly Eros.

Eriximaco approves the distinction of Pausânias on the duplicity of Love and, universalist, extends it to every cosmos: “great and admirable, and it extends to everything, both in the order of human and divine things”, being a doctor says that the love and concord provide harmony, combining opposites (the healthy and the morbid) that extend throughout the universe: “one must keep one love and the other…”.

Aristophanes will insist on the power that love has over historical nature, using the myth of the androgens, legitimizing homo-affection and the unbridled search for what we now call “soul mates”, which is a search for perfectionism and in a way narcissism . Socrates praises the fact that Agaton began to show nature and what are the works of Love, but then follows his classic Question method: “Is Love such that it is Love of something or nothing?”, Ágaton confirms that Love is Love of something. Which “something” is Love from and continues with the question: “Does Love, what it is love, does it want it or not?” and the banquet follows the fashion of the Greek classics.

The banquet, the table at which everyone sits is the important part of this dialogue, seems so classic and so present, but we would add a question and Francisco de Assis, remembered these days, he said with conviction: “Love is not loved”, so before to be an instrument as stated by Agaton is itself something to be used as an instrument, at a time of so much pain in humanity, or else the Socratic way of asking: “Is Love loved?”

Plato, (2003). The Symposium, trans. by Christopher Gill. London: Penguin.

 

 

 

If that night comes

24 Sep

Europe lives on the fear of a new wave of the pandemic, and yet the solidarity with those who die is still small, there is even an expression of feelings or some commotion, but the fraternal humanitarian feeling is localized to people who always walk in humanist actions in moments of crisis.

What would happen if there were any natural catastrophe or something that would call humanity to consciousness in an even more serious way, of course it is not desirable and this panic should not be spread, but hypothetically if a deeper night befalls humanity, perhaps a new awareness of the grave situation of civilization was thought and achieved on a large scale.

It is also visible that those who are most supportive are the last ones in social valorization, already living in a serious situation, the pandemic makes them more supportive, there fraternity is a necessity for human survival itself.

The night and the blindness is not announced now by the pandemic, here in this blog in several posts we call attention to the cultural, social and even religious night of humanity, the path of the civilizing process seems to be collapsing, that is, whoever observes history while over the last few centuries it has been clearly visible, two wars, a process of social isolation of cultures, races and creeds, prejudice against migrants and mainly an increase in inequality.

If the night comes, unlike those who imagine that humble lives are “wasted lives”, it will be the arrogant and opulent lives that are less prepared for a “civilizing night” already underway.

It was not the pandemic that made this emerge, it just made evident and palpable what has been in process for some time, but what should be asked is if there was an extended, visible night that puts us in check.

It is not an apocalyptic or even a prophetic vision, while respecting them, a deep look at the inhuman, violent and antisocial processes that are being experienced, the decay and the worsening of the crisis is there.

If the night comes, few will be prepared, only those who are already in supportive environments and processes, those who during the lull period worked and experienced the fraternal, humanity and supportive side of everyday life.

 

 

Hatred, disdain and reflection

07 Sep

It is not by chance that the brain region of structures such as the medial frontal cortex, whose capacity to argue and therefore to dialogue is there, has as its core the putamen, the pre-motor cortex and the insular cortex, whose structures also participate in the perception of disdain and disgust, that is, the activation of hatred is physically in the brain close to those associated with judgment and reasoning, so you can both activate one as the other, there are both options.

Those who want to justify hate are full of arguments, are capable of even deep reasoning to act against the hated, but if the premise is dialogue, the same reasoning can be used to understand, care for and divert the violence of the other, as some martial arts teach, bypassing the “body”.

Hate will not disappear in the hope that external circumstances change, in general it does not happen, it is not a magic, to cure it, it is necessary to recognize diversity, its problems, as Gadamer would have to be aware of preconceptions, that is, of the fundamentals that start a disagreement or a type of credit, to recognize the Other in its bubble and to recognize ours, both as having preconceptions.

If we actually activate the reasoning, thinking part and put the disagreements on this level, we mitigate the hate part a little, but it is essential to ask and a part of our hatred would come down to reflecting in this way: “Why do I hate? What do I intend to achieve with this? What do I gain and lose from my hatred? ”.

I do not know of a situation that has been resolved in this case, in general it has led to a greater conflict, to a greater mutual hatred, if the objective is war we will probably get there, but I believe that for most people it is not, so what remains is to reflect , analyze the origins of such “evil” in its deepest bases.

Hate must be combated with the understanding and mainly that it leads to a new type of action, which implies to recognize in the first place that it exists and it is fostering on two sides and not by only one, in the manifestations of people and in their advertisements, denunciations are recurrent to say the whole truth is on this side and on the other just a lie, it is necessary to explain the consequences and that in fact those who benefit are those whose reason for existing and thinking is really “hatred”.

Wise people of various shades such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa of Calcutta with wisdom and intelligence in the face of enormous and absurd conflicts have been able to show that kindness and generosity, creativity and respect for others can lead to seeking a larger collective good and although a little longer will have more lasting fruits, with less violence and deaths, but because even in serious groups hatred persists, the answer is very simple. Encouraged by leaders and groups that live in political, ideological or religious bubbles, the main resource is the demonization of the adversary, identified with some disgusting aspect of evil: death, corruption, sexual, racial or gender violence, weakening of values ​​or something of the like.

And once united in a group the fear disappears and this reduces the inhibition of those who hate to act in other ways not that of argumentation and exposure of facts, but violence against violence.

The leaders who incite this hatred, say they can no longer control it, but deep down they wanted it, develop this part of the reasoning that we say at the beginning near the part of the brain of the putamen, and released the hatred will be executed by the people who use the other part with less reasoning and more visceral, so the hate “explodes”.

What we should think about in face of unworthy facts, and at this moment there should be none greater than the pandemic, is that the feeling of fear and exhaustion by confinement is exploited not in achieving ways of relaxation and anti-stress, but in releasing it in violent ways, what are the consequences? and who are they favoring?

I think of the hateful ones, and not the loving ones who in fact have love for humanity and the most fragile appreciation. It seems like a path of no return, in the midst of a pandemic and with two tense elections approaching, the United States national and municipal elections in Brazil, I see little or no discussion about the pandemic and about those who die every day, bereaved families and compassion for them, neither on one side nor on the other. Fortunately, mortality levels have decreased, but the long weekend promises crowds, the village of cars to the beach was huge, and the pandemic?

 

 

Art, split and unity

03 Sep

Hölderlin, a German poet cited and praised by Heidegger, also maintained intimacy with philosophy, in one of his little-known writings he contested the “absolute self”, but it is also necessary to question a precise “we” to a bubble, to a hierarchical world and stylized, in the poet’s perspective, consciousness without an object would be inconceivable and every judgment presupposes the world, which is very close to the awareness of something that phenomenology proposes.

The theoretical principles of a philosophy of history, very close to the view of Gadamer’s historical consciousness, were developed as divided into three periods: the unity, the split and the recovery of nature (in the form of the naturalness of art), however Hölderlin treated also from the aortic, and one could think of the real recovery of nature, in pandemic times it seems to breathe: fish, birds and animals reappear, the air is lighter and it seems that nature is grateful.

The split, which causes man to face so many contradictions and inequalities, is also said Rousseau, a condition of freedom, however when faced with indignities and injustices this condition seems to be threatened, the poet used poetry as a “Harmonic opposition” between the self and the world, but it claims a third, poetic and harmonic in which the world of texts inhabits, as Roland Barthes supposed, says in his poetry Half of Life:

            Where is it winter, find the flowers, and where the sunlight and the shadows of the earth? ”

            In the end, only “walls and flags in the wind” remain

            The poem itself is half that cannot be completed without the reader and the world.

            It is also uncertainty, according to beautiful image of the “song of the destiny of Hyperion”:

           “Like water from cliff to cliff, poured incessantly into the uncertain”.

Hyperion’s destiny song says:

           You walk up there in the light

          On soft ground, happy geniuses! Sparkling divine breezes

          They touch you lightly

          Like the fingers of the artist Sacred strings.

What Hölderlin inspires me is the differentiation between thinking and philosophizing, Heidegger also discarded the second, in the case of the poet his life and work cause relations between thought and poetry, and this one in a new relationship with philosophy, there is no poets soon neither philosophers.