Arquivo para a ‘Sem categoria’ Categoria
Substance of the universe: the Sacred Corpus
15
Jun
Contrary to what is supposed, substance is that which is permanent in things that
change, and therefore the foundation of every accident, and everything is changing in the universe then what is the primordial substance, what is the genesis of the whole universe?
Interpretations can be divided into three streams: there are those who recognize only one substance (monist) stand out Spinoza and Leibniz, those who recognize two substances (dualists) that is the foundation of modern idealism, or the most common are the pluralists, The “pure” currents that come from Platonism and Aristotelianism.
All that exists is to be monistic and pluralistic, then the being is constituted of a plurality of elements that ground it as substances, but for these they can be hierarchized ontologically, for monists there is only a hierarchy that is the initial monad in the interpretation of Spinoza and Leibniz is God, in the conception of modern science, a corpuscle of electromagnetic concentration where the Big Bang occurred.
There are those who contest the Big Bang, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom said, “The probability of us living within a simulation is close to 100%,” something like the Matrix, but to deny the substantiality of the universe is to deny apodic evidence That is accepted without demonstration).
The philosopher Franz Brentano has regained a category of scholasticism called intentionality, to define what is consciousness as that which is directed to something, his student Edmund Husserl used it to define consciousness as something intentional.
If we think so, but important that the universe exists, and it has its substantiality (its corpus), is that something or someone had intentionality of this first object, that is, created it in a “conscious” way and call it what it wants, He is a Being because he exists.
If we admit its materiality, even light can be observed in its influence on a gravitational body (see our post on NASA’s observation), even the existences of man can be demonstrated in its evolution now we know of over 300 thousand years, we must Admit substantiality, and consider the idea of the initial monad as plausible, then there is a “body” formed of this original, conscious Being.
Teilhard Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit priest, considered the entire universe the Body of Christ, more than a mystical body, a substantial cosmic body, if anything is made of this universe, it is stored in its source and initial primary consciousness;
The apodic evidence we need to admit of a Divine Corpus, alpha and omega, beginning and end, may need little to be admitted, but in the absence of this, there remains what we call faith, never blind, nor contrary to reason,
Crisis, thins and nothingness
07
Jun
The crisis, the things and the nothing now separate with the things, and asks the 
essential question: between the things exists the nothingness?
Should not someone who had been unaware of it make the false ask not to ask about Being rather than about things and nothingness? Yes our philosopher will clarify this, but modernity poses the question of the relation between things and in it arises the dualism of separation between things.
Mário Ferreira explains that “Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas who follow the Aristotelian line affirm that time and space are entities of reason (entia rationis), but founded on things grounded in re [thing], for there are things between distances And to succeed, which allow us to generalize the schemas of experience, until we form the abstract concepts of time and space, which modern rationalism has totally separated from facts, emptying them from them, which are given in them “(page 32)
He clarified that space and time will be fundamental concepts for modern thought: “but emptied of all factual content, are conceptual entities whose content implies the stripping away of everything that happens factually …” (idem). In order to analyze these schemes Mario Ferreira uses psychogenesis, because he will say that the fact that the schemas are constructed, by experience, a posteriori will refer in the Kantian schema according to its psychogenesis, the existence of a priori positivity, “which is undeniably a positivity of the Kantian thought. “(Idem) Then he will ask the essential question about nothingness: “if things take place in space and they separate, as the limit reveals it, space is interposed between them. But what space? ” Here it separates according to the model of Democritus in there is an emptiness between the things and the one of Lorentz, a full space. Also at the beginning of modernity Leibniz proposed the monadology.
We are, therefore, between two affirmations (page 33), one affirming the presence of nothingness, of an absolute absent, and another affirming the presence of being, in which there are no interstices or frontiers, because it fills everything, and this psychogenesis creates ” A scheme of relationship of things, without being given a real presence, per se. “(Idem).
So this is tension, not dualism, between nothingness and being, or if we prefer the separation between things and the relation between them, the former is rationalist and “it is a worsening of the crisis.”
Discovering the relation between the finite that “finitude can only be given where there is something, because it allows to measure. Nothing is immeasurable, nothingness would be an abyss without end. “(Page 34)
In a footnote, he clarifies: The impossibility of an absolute nothingness, between islands of being, is demonstrated by us apoditically (by evidence), in Concrete Philosophy.
The important point of this argument is that through it one can affirm “the eternal presence of being, in which we are immersed and that sustains us, which allows us to communicate …” (page 35) and then the crisis is not so Deep, it has degrees, says our brazilian philosopher.
SANTOS, Mario Ferreira dos. Filosofia da crise, São Paulo: É realizações, 2017.
Crisis, the limites and the know
06
Jun
We are reading Mário Ferreira dos Santos, and at the end of the first chapter 
of the “Philosophy of Crisis”, points out that we are aware of the limit that exists with the Other and the nodes, to point 5 points of this separation before plunging into what is nothingness Between things (and beings).
On this separation, he affirms that “things also suffer from their limits, but quiet, intrinsically silent, even before themselves, because in them, there is no one who peers at himself. “(Page 20)
We are aware of the crisis, things also suffer separation, and the crisis worsens “if we accept this separation as irremediable, an insurmountable abyss, drawn between us and others,” the fourth limit is that of individuality, that of others Philosophers, and from this originates the fifth limit: “from the self before the limit of individuality.” (Page 29)
“And there is in us something that always puts beyond all our knowledge, something that we know, always distant, always more and more distant, that marks a presence always separates from everything that we delimit, since knowing is always delimiting? “(Page 29) ends the long reflection on separation and crisis with a central cognitive question.
It is something like the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) affirmed: “knowledge is an island surrounded by an ocean of mystery. I prefer the ocean to the island, “to indicate that the crisis is most often a go beyond, and penetrate the ocean of mystery
The chapter on the concept of the crisis ends with two observations: “between the limits of all our knowledge, is there not always something in us that knows, that conquers them, because it does not allow them to be apprehended? And that always separates, distant, always the same? “(Page 30), and that even in crisis,” there is also a point of a victory that we live in us. “(idem)
He ends the chapter with hope: “Therefore, there is no reason not to despair. But we must find the promised way. “(Idem).
SANTOS, Mario Ferreira dos. Filosofia da crise, São Paulo: É realizações, 2017.
Epistemology and crisis of thought
01
Jun
The British philosopher David Hume, in the eighteenth century, writes in the
Treatise on Human Nature, a questioning of induction as a valid mechanism for scientific discovery, was the part of this question that Karl R. Popper in The Logic of Scientific Research by Karl R Popper (1902-1994), brought the “novelty” in the philosophy debate of science by repeating the Humean idea.
The problem formulated by Popper was based on the separation of metaphysics (pseudoscience) and true science, “empirical science”, but Thomas Khun (1922-1996) in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Will question this.
The history of science would already demonstrate this, that is, that periodically, one paradigm was replaced by another, although this is not by a simple observation incompatible with the theory, as it attested the principle of the falsperabilidad popperian, what happens is a change of Thought, he quotes Copernicus, but Heisenberg with the quantum principle and Albert Einstein with the Theory of Relativity are more general.
The Hungarian mathematician and philosopher Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) followed Popper’s ideas and the principle of falsifiability by softening it: the history of science would demonstrate that theories were never completely abandoned, even when refuted.
Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) developed a radically innovative argument in his work suggestively titled Against Method, stating that there was never the possibility of establishing objective criteria for the evaluation of scientific theories. Denying the whole method of logical positivism, which defended a unique methodological standard.
However, this crisis has already deepened, we have already mentioned Edmund Husserl, who looked at the crisis of the European sciences in the development of his phenomenology, among several statements we find: “With the awakening of the reflection of the relation between knowledge and the object, abyssal obstacles . Knowledge, the most obvious thing in natural thought, suddenly appears as a mystery, “and will have between notable later influences like Heidegger and Gadamer, who take up the ontological question, where consciousness is essential.
The Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Souza Santos, in his writing A discourse on the sciences, revalues the controversy introducing that the attenuation of the distinction between organic and inorganic, human and nonhuman would be useless, but the question of the conscience is not touched.
Edgar Morin, H.G. Gadamer, Lévinas and Ricoeur, and other contemporary thinkers agree that it takes a turn in thought, wrapped in complexity and experiences
Epistemology and the humanities
31
May
From the middle of the nineteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth 
century, the human sciences lived a real transformation in the search for an alternative to the epistemological foundations of scientific knowledge, since the old “positivist” and “naturalist” models were in check.
Dilthey, Schleiermacher’s successor who proposed the hermeneutic method, sought philosophical foundations for an epistemology of scientific knowledge, thus said: “The sciences that have the socio-historical reality as their object of study seek, more intensely than before, the systematic relations between They and their foundations.” (DILTHEY 1989, p.59).
Gadamer will differentiate parity with the natural sciences with the human sciences (Geistewissenchaften), proposing that what occurs with an artistic interpretation, is different from reading, because “Reading, distinct from a ‘recital’, does not stand for itself Same; It is not an autonomous update of a thought pattern but remains subordinate to the text restored by the reading process. “(GADAMER, 2012, p.11).
The ideal model is romantic, as called by Gadamer, and deals with consequences for epistemology, for “Its ideal is to decode the Book of History. This is the method by which Dilthey hopes can justify self-understanding of the interpretive sciences and their scientific objectivity. “(Idem)
Just as texts have a “pure sense,” so history would have it, in Gadamer’s analysis, however, “their self-understanding of the sciences is not” truly consonant with their fundamental position in terms of Lebesphilosophie.” (Life) (GADAMER, 2012, p.12).
It clarifies that it is always “in the connection between ‘life’, which always implies consciousness and reflexivity (Besinung), and ‘science’, which develops from life as one of its possibilities” (idem).
Thus, the clear epistemological implication: “The human sciences thus acquire a ” ethical ” valence that could not remain without consequences for their methodological self-understanding.” (Idem)
Thus the human sciences “are closer to human self-understanding than the natural sciences. The objectivity of the latter is no longer an ideal of unequivocal and binding knowledge. “(Idem).
He will seek in Nicomachus ‘Ethics the lost foundations, when in the sixth book Aristotle distinguishes: “From theoretical and technical knowledge the mode of practical knowledge he expresses, in my view, one of the greatest truths that allow Greek thought to bring to light the’ Mystification ‘of modern society in which specialization reigns. “(GADAMER, 2012, page 13).
References:
DILTHEY, W. Introduction to the Human Sciences. Ed. By R. A. Makkreel & F. Rodi; Trad. Michael Neville. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989.
GADAMER, H.G. The problem of historical consciousness, (Brazilian edition) 3rd. Edition, 3rd. Reprint, Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2012.
Hermeneutics and fanaticism
29
May
From the Platonic philosophy, which was an overcoming of the discourse of the
sophists that served only the rhetoric of power, the dualism of knowledge between the Doxa that is the opinion and the Episteme that would be the true knowledge, but some authors see Doxa as first knowledge.
All discourse and Socratic logic, which Plato uses abundantly, is nothing but the dialogue between knowledge as presented and its elaboration through questions.
The fact that we fall into a labyrinth of doubts and crises in modernity, even with systematized knowledge is nothing but the return to what is in fact the episteme, how life changes, the logic of life would also be expected, must change and so Changes the method of investigating it.
I call this requirement of our time “epistemological openness,” allowing new systems and new ways of thinking to be possible and amenable to analysis, so “doxa” or simple opinion may not be just a modern form of sophistry, but a “Unveiling”.
Fanaticism is generally the refusal to an “epistemological opening,” is the closure in a scheme “that worked” for a period, but may no longer serve the logic of life today.
Of course there are several levels of fanaticism, but in essence it is a closure to the discourse of the Other, to the hermeneutic circle where some form of fusion of horizons is possible, as the philosopher Gadamer calls it.
So to speak is the communication that another discourse different from that of my epistemic circle is not accepted, it is not tolerable and should be banished, hence to get violent forms of communication is not a step, but it is an almost inevitable path.
It is not an epistemic closure, a help is Marshall Rosenberg’s book “Nonviolent Communication” ranges from self-help to freedom from conditioning and negative experiences, to philosophical schemes and problems of political positioning so common in all spheres of our Life today
The Spirit of Truth in Idealism
16
May
Modern idealism initiated with Fichte (1762-1814) and Schelling (1775-1854),
as a certain opposition to Kant’s philosophy that is also idealistic, will have its apex with Hegel (1770-1831), who claims to exist an “absolute spirit” and Which is the one with which man relates more deeply, can be known and can be unfolded in three relevant levels: art, religion and philosophy.
It seems strong and even true, but there are severe critics who say that the death of art happens to Hegel, Marx somehow tries to proclaim the end of philosophy by stating that “philosophers must now transform the world,” and lastly, religion of Hegel is nothing but the purest philosophy of God, unable to reach the world and the concrete man.
Of course, the guilt is not exclusive to Hegel, but philosophy, art and religion are decidedly in crisis, and almost all philosophers and theologians, reading the “last testament of Benedict XVI”, affirm that since 1956 a process of “de-globalization” of Religion, that is, the loss of its universality.
On the subject of art, I recall Heidegger’s text on the question of technique, but whose most profound critique is that of art, when it asserts itself by questioning the truth, freedom, and event of being and being, that “art is historical In the essential sense [… since] it lets the truth sprout. Art, while a preservation that sows, lets the truth of the being sprout in the work, “but he sees that today he needs an unveiling.
Idealist philosophy expresses the “absolute spirit” in Hegel thus: “The spirit is spirit only, insofar as it is to the spirit; And in absolute religion it is the absolute spirit which manifests itself, no longer its abstract moments, but itself. ” (HEGEL, 2012).
It is a closure of the spirit in itself in a pure spiritualism, without one for which it is the opening to the other, this is the contemporary religion that when it manifests itself in relation to the external object does not see it within itself in its subjectivity, Hegel expresses Philosophy is determined to be a knowledge of the necessity of the content of absolute representation, as well as of the necessity of the two forms: on the one hand, the immediate intuition and its poetry, and the representation, which presupposes revelation Objective and external; On the other hand, first, to enter into subjective self, after the subjective outward movement and the identification of faith with the presupposition. “(HEGEL, 2012).
Contemporary philosophy, from Heidegger with Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Lévinas, opens it with the hermeneutics present in the Question of consciousness of the story of Gadamer, in the Other of Paul Ricoeur and in Totality and Infinity of Emmanuel Lévinas.
HEGEL, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Terry Pinkard, 2012.
Nectarios G. Limnatis, German Idealism and the Problem of Knowledge: Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, Springer, 2008.
Effective historical consciousness, pain and the Other
12
Apr
In this sense, we speak of an inversion of consciousness, but 
consciousness in Hegel and in all Enlightenment, it follows that experience is translated into a dialectical movement of consciousness with itself. In the last instance, in absolute knowledge one perceives Identity of subject and object, but in the logic of fusion and not the distinction between subject and object. This removes all possibility and legitimacy from experience, since man has to be in the very content to accept it and the consciousness to acquire certainty of itself;
In Gadamer’s logic, “the essence of experience is here thought from the beginning, from something in which experience is already overcome.
For experience itself can never be science, “in addition, Heidegger warns that Hegel does not think of experience as a dialectic; On the contrary, visualizes the dialectic from experience, it would be said that it is not the consciousness of the world, but the world of consciousness.
If from experience one never makes science because there is “an insurmountable opposition to knowledge and to that teaching flowing from a theoretical or technical knowledge,” object of several studies of ours, because one always faces an opening for other experiences. One must accept the fact that certainties and dogmas do not last forever and are subject to change. The only plausible certainty is impossibility of knowing everything.
The more experienced an individual is, the more awareness he has of the infinite possibilities of the human being and the more he is aware of his Being.
Thus the path made Gadamer possesses elements to conclude that experience is the consciousness of one’s own human finitude and limitations, a reference to classical philosophy, in Aeschylus is quite illustrative: “to learn by suffering”, that is, painfully, the Man becomes aware of his separation from the divinity and temporality of his existence. Every experience, no matter how consumed or exhausted, always constitutes openness. Not even man has an essence. Being means a power to be itself, because it has the characteristics of indefinition and the infinite possibilities. In this way, it becomes incoherent to speak of experience in the teleological sense, as Husserl and Bacon, and Hegel’s deformed form.
Tradition has to reach experience, just as language is complementary and from it comes speech, which is a you, you must differentiate your experience from truly hermeneutic experience, see works by Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Lévinas, while the first Can take place in the form of knowledge of persons, making you an object of analysis, or recognizing it as a person, but still remains with reference to the interpreter itself, hermeneutics allows the other as an interpreter is therefore a step forward in knowledge Of truth.
The hermeneutic experience is one that assumes the consciousness of the actual history. Tradition has to be truly understood as a you. All otherness has something to say and its condition of another must be respected. Pretensions or preconceptions can not be imposed. The opening occurs in a mutual way, that is, between those who “listen” and those who “speak something”, even with the possibility that it is contrary to the interpreter, according to Gadamer.
The actual consciousness and the question of experience
11
Apr
The actual consciousness is the recognition that it is structured in the form 
of experience in Gadamer, but it is necessary to understand the hermeneutic experience, especially since it is a concept of difficult understanding, because the overvaluation of scientific knowledge, notably in the nineteenth century, Led to a distortion of its real value.
In the scientific point of view, experience is all that can be repeated by whoever wishes at any time, that is, it is fundamentally linked to an objectifying “path” of knowledge, sometimes called practice, but which practice? . Gadamer was to revisit just what various philosophical nuances understand by scientific truth and method, it is not a conclusion just a “unveiling.”
For Francis Bacon, all knowledge should come from experience. It was in this way somewhat unpretentious to face the experience that later came to a valid generalization until it was opposed, proposing the interpretatio natura, a way of “gradual access to true and sustainable generalities” and that later it was systematized and became “method “By Hume, considered the father (perhaps the grandfather) of empiricism, so through the observation of nature, the inductive method allows access to the general, raised to this category after the rational organization of the data obtained and the proof of the hypotheses, but Empiricism has also generated contradictions.
Husserl attempted to get rid of this experience bias of the linkage with the science of all experimentation, claiming that it occurs in the world of life, therefore, it predates its idealization. Here in the sense of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which tried to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. As we know, inspired by Descartes, the phenomenon was something that showed “repudiation by the empirical sciences”, which denotes the lack of appreciation for the experiences trying to make all interpretation by “reason”. If only that which is evident in consciousness can be true, surely the senses lead to deception. However, Husserl remained attached to what he wanted to free himself, but Heidegger and Gadamer took the necessary steps.
Gadamer objected to the objection of simplifying the process of producing experience by focusing on its relation to science and to the formation of concepts. The process of experience truly takes place on its negative side, that is, it deconstructs generalities and typicities, does not correspond to expectations, as it affirms in Truth and Method “the negativity of experience has, therefore, a particular productive meaning. It is not simply a deception that becomes visible and, consequently, a correction, but what is acquired is a comprehensive knowledge. “
The negative sense of experience and the constant openness to new possibilities lead to the dialectic, a question which Hegel elaborated, for which experience is a manifestation of skepticism, but an experience is rewritten according to the maxim of Heraclitus of Ephesus: “you can not pass The same river twice, the waters run over you.”
The Problem of Historical Consciousness
15
Mar
In 1957 Hans-Georg Gadamer was invited to lecture for a quarter at the 
University of Louvain, in 1963 he appeared in French under the title Le probleme de la conscience historique, and there was still no major work of the hermeneutic philosopher “Truth and Method”.
After it appeared in 1969 an Italian version of the text, but it was in the English version of 1975, that according to Gadamer he “rediscovered with himself” reviewing the original text for publication in English, of this edition was made the translation into Portuguese, like 1st edition in 1998, and the edition I read is from 2006, 3rd. Edition made by FGV (Getúlio Vargas Foundation, Brazil).
The book is therefore a powerful preamble for anyone who wishes to read Truth and Method, where the problem of historical consciousness and its relation to the method goes back to Schleiermacher and his retelling by Dilthey, Gadamer being “his ideal is to decode the Book of History” (Gadamer, 2006, p.11).
The lectures of Gadamer, which were the basis of this booklet, reflect the “problem of introducing the hermeneutic problem from the perspective of Husserl and Heidegger” (page 10), a problem which was therefore treated in a special way in Germany, where thanks to Wilhelm Dilthey and what is called his Lebensphilosophie “(idem), the philosophy of life.
The problem of interpretation according to the laws of nature, in german Geisteswissenschaften (Human Sciences), Gadamer clarifies that in Truth and Method he deliberately began to invoke another example, “represented by the experience of art and the hermeneutic dimension, which certainly intervenes in the study Art scientist, but above all in the experience of art “(page 10).
He goes with this to distance himself from Dilthey, who set out to construct an epistemic base for the Geiteswissenchaften, but was not seen as the philologist clarifies, but as “a theorist of the method of a school history who did not see” the understanding of texts and other fragments of the past as their ultimate goal”, Gadamer wrote quoting Dilthey.
What Dilthey hoped was to reconcile the interpretive sciences with their scientific objectivity, the initial idea was to give hermeneutics a universal method.
Gadamer clarifies his position: “to show that self-understanding in relation to the sciences is not really consonant with his fundamental position in terms of Lebensphilosophie” (page 12), and clarifies that the human possibility of reflective thinking “does not coincide in Truth with the objectification of recognition through the scientific method. “(Idem)
It will clarify that the connection between “life” when one speaks of consciousness and reflexivity and “science” (he put in brackets), to develop from life is one of possibilities.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, “The Problem of Historical Consciousness,” in “H.-G. Gadamer,” special issue, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 5:1 (1975) (the number of pages is Brazilian edition).
