Arquivo para a ‘Sem categoria’ Categoria
Which technologies are emerging
17
Feb
There are several methods of analyzing market trends, stock exchanges
like Nasdaq and many of its analysts and brokers are one type, but one highly referenced is the so-called Gartner curve.
The consultants this Gartner or Hypocycle curve, not only targets trend analysis, but mainly: “The Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies is unique to doing analysis among several sets of HypoCycles, this because it distills insights from more than 2,000 technologies in a concise set of emerging technologies and trends that will have the greatest impact on the strategic planning of certain organizations, “said Mike J. Walker, director of the consulting firm, as reported on the company’s website earlier this year.
According to the analysis of the Gartner Curve, a consulting firm for investors in the area, the virtual reality is the great emerging technology in the year 2016, augmented reality (see Pokemon) is still at the bottom of the can of the process of disillusionment.
Bilding 3D images in medical fields is aplication examples of virtual reality.
Curves between technologies that are considered criticals include 4D Printing, Brain-Computer Interface, Human Augmentation, Volumetric Displays, Affective Computing, Connected Home, Nanotube Electronics, Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality e Gesture Control Devices.
Gartner clients can read more in the report “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2016.” This report is part of Gartner’s Hype Cycle Special Report for 2016
Two findings: technology and religion
13
Feb
We must read the history of the present moment backward, that is, in the opposite sense, 
although a dose of “desantropomorphization” is always important, that is, to attribute the whole foundation of the concepts studied to man alone, without considering his surroundings; with this the use of technology for its handling.
This means that man is what he does with nature and with his fellows around him, the important relation to the Other that the current philosophy emphasizes.
Taking a leap into history, returning to 7,000 BC, we find the Stonehenge monument in central England, and recently (in the 1990s) a cave was found with paintings dating to 30,000 BC, the Chauvet Cave.
Several studies of archeology, Stonehenge is more advanced, point two interesting facts: the technological importance, the stones of Stonehenge were moved by England from Wales, and the religious aspect: it is known that that circle is part of larger circles of Where several inhabitants came for some sort of “religious” rite.
The second discovery is more intriguing, a true art gallery was found in Chauvet, showing an already refined technique of painting and what Werner Herzog called “homo spiritualis” in his film “The Cave of Forgotten Dreams“, the only film allowed Until today of this gallery of prehistoric art.
It is important to know that both English researchers and archaeologists who research Stonehenge (see our post) and Werner Herzog who filmed Chauvet are not religious people, but the realization that there was something “spiritual” on both monuments makes us think.
Man has always lived immersed in a spiritual sphere, which Teilhard Chardin called the Noosphere and used technology, so the anthropomorphic principle is false, we are nature.
Translate into simple things can complicate
10
Feb
Networks are simple, but any analysis using even simple concepts such as 
“weak links,” “bridges,” “centrality,” and “degrees of separation” can, as the number of actors in a network increases, exponentially increase its complexity.
There are many everyday reasonings that lead to this misguided thought, the simple idea that life, its origin in the universe, what we do and what we are, has simple answers leads to a mistaken simplistic reasoning, from the scientific to the religious.
The idea that God exists or not for example is complex, because its three structuring elements are not simple: faith that is belief in what is not evident (not so simple), hope whose element can often arrive at the absurdity that is – the same in situations of despair, war or any extreme gravity; And finally: charity (in the sense of agape love) which is perhaps the most impossible thing to codify, yet easy to feel how much it really is in her presence.
But scientific reasoning is the most complex, from the formulas of reductionists such as Wilhem Ockham, English nominalist of the eleventh century who created the famous Ockham Razor, which if it is between two explanations of a certain object, I get the simplest, but it questions remains: who guarantees that the correct explanation is not the complex one.
Nominalism was fought by the realists, and the fundamental problem is whether or not there are universal, which are realities in themselves, and transcendent in relation to private ones, that is, the qualities (Plato enunciated the formula universais ante rem), or Properties since things are immanent qualities (for Aristotle: university in re).
From Duns Scotus, who called the razor principle of economics (of reasoning?) And later Descartes and Kant, although Kant’s masterpiece was a critique of Descartes: Critique of pure reason, but what lies at the base Of this discourse, is sometimes forgotten, or neglected: subjectivity, the transcendent, and the faith.
Duns Scotus, who is at the origin of this thought, curiously asserts that the truths of faith could not be understood by reason, the contrary that had been said by Thomas Aquinas, which was realistic, and what Kant desires in criticizing “pure reason” is Fact that it can not subsist on its own, needs to “transcend” to the object, creates a subjectivism of its own to which some fundamentalist currents will associate, Kant was a descendant of Puritan Protestants.
His task at the epistemological level was to try to make a synthesis between Descartes and Leibniz’s rationalism and the empiricism of Hume, Locke and Berkeley, but he will be especially useful to nascent liberalism, although this connection is complex, one can simplify it to taste Of simplism: to separate subject and object.
Yes, it is not only this, but Hegel will finish the task of liberal idealism: to construct an eternal idea of State, to organize religion in a way that is convenient to “subjectivism”, removing it from concrete and objective things, and finally to create a “Phenomenology of the Spirit” .
Those who wish to make this understanding a reductionist and simplistic task will read history as those who wished to write it did so, separate the subjective: religious, historical, political, and even religious, from concrete historical consciousness: facts, miseries and corruptions .
The apology of ignorance, the absence of deep thought serve whom? Post-true mentality.
Historical consciousness absent
07
Feb
There are two conceptions that mark ideas about contemporary history: one
of positivist reasoning we owe to Karl Popper, who misrepresents Karl Marx, but he wrote against “historical determinism” even though he wanted to make his theory a “scientific socialism “The other, which poses a positivist and skeptical view of possible changes and transformations within historical consciousness, such as the end of history.
There are those who call all this from “practice” in opposition also incorrect to theory, because nothing more theoretical than a bad practice and nothing more practical and present in life than a good theory.
The importance of rethinking historical consciousness, not instrumentalized and in deep dialogue with humanity, comes from Hans-Georg Gadamer, although the proponents of the “scientific-historical” currents above say that this is only a theoretical reflection of history, for That their practice is so bad and of little fertility.
Is there historical being? Do we conceive ourselves with this being? (Gadamer, 2007, p. 307), so one can see how much theory and life it is. That there is no historical reflection.
What would this being be in time? By borrowing from Heidegger’s reflection that Gadamer is also an heir, the answer is very simple as well: “tradition is essentially conservation and as such is always active in historical changes” (Gadamer, 2007: 373) We are impelled not to change, even if we think and desire change, today how much to change!
We can think and why it does not change, with so many attempts and today we can say almost two centuries if we think of the great crisis of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, mercantilism and industrial revolution, with serious consequences in European and then world wars, but at the root of this crisis is the thought (theoric?),
About what we think about democracy, social life and conceptions of economy.
The successive author-referenced thinking of various currents, beliefs, and theories is the problem of ‘tradition’, as described by Gadamer: “It is not history that belongs to us, but we belong to history” (Gadamer 2007, 367), that is, we are the fruits of our time, in the “theoretical” way of thinking and its instruments.
GADAMER, H-G. Verdade e Método (Truth and Method: Fundamental traits of a philosophical hermeneutics). Petropolis: Voices; Bragança Paulista: Editora Universitária, 2007.
Hermeneutics, ontology and dialogue
02
Feb
The word hermeneutics comes from the Greek hermeneuti, hermeneutik or hermeneia,
in a sense given by Philo of Alexandria as “hermeneia is logos expressed in words, manifestation of thought by word,” so it is associated with the god Hermes.
This god in Greek mythology was a mediator, patron of communication and human understanding whose function was to make the divine message intelligible to men, being attributed both to the origin of oral and written language.
Ontological hermeneutics was developed in the Middle Ages, it was based on the idea that there would be normative forms that allowed from interpretative techniques of texts, to make unique interpretations, but from the beginning it was divided into theological hermeneutics (sacra) and philosophical (profane) hermeneutics, and more recently a legal hermeneutics has emerged.
Plato was the first to use it, with the clear aim of overcoming the relativism of the sophists, but the understanding of this as language is due to the already mentioned Philo and Clement of Alexandria, and later Augustine (354-430) developed it As “Christian doctrine,” which, whatever the reading, is admittedly the most effective in the ancient world.
Plato (427 BC) the first to use it. Philo and Clement of Alexandria will understand it as the manifestation of thought by language. Augustine (354-430), who developed in his “Christian Doctrine” the acknowledged most effective hermeneutical theory of the “ancient world”, will use it as a doctrine of interpretation, especially of the obscure passages of Sacred Scripture, the method may help also a universal vision of using language in the interpretation of philosophical and even scientific texts.
Schleimacher will lend this reading, the idea that it is mainly in obscure passages of the Bible to seek the “living truth” because, he says, this is a search for understanding, or as he says: “understanding means, in principle, with each other” and that knowledge is, in principle, understanding.
Understanding and dialogue are correlates because it implies that not only is an interpretive view valid, but one can think of views from angles or distinct aspects in such a way that the truth emerges in the face of a discourse that is not closed, curiously here one can Also calls it hermetic, and there may be dialogue, in the sense that the tone is not raised, but not the dialogic one in the sense of “fusion of horizons”, a concept dear to Gadamer.
Understanding to knowledge as a phenomenon, not as logical-deductive reasoning, only in this case can one understand how Dilthey would say that “to understand is to understand an expression”, differentiating the relations of the spiritual world from causal relations in the nexus of nature, : A seed is planted that will sprout and grow a tree.
For Gadamer (1997), there is a proper foundation of the sciences of the spirit, so that in Dilthey’s hermeneutics more than an instrument, it can become valid as the universal medium of historical consciousness, for which there is no other knowledge Of the truth than to understand the expression, and this depends on the other, not on the instrumentalization of the other, in this sense dialogue may in some cases not promote dialogue, mutual understanding and mutual acceptance.
Neither sun neither death
01
Feb
What we see with Trump, British Conservative thought (BRExit) and
French (elections this year with even the extreme right chances to come to power), can in economic terms mean a return to the Wealth of Nations period (classic work of Adam Smith In the year 1776), but there are other possible analyzes and Sloterdijk is one of them.
I read and had to paralyze the reading of the Critique of Cynical Reason for the forcefulness of the work, but gradually I returned realizing that its main endeavor was a critique of “false consciousness” of the Habermasian theory, and I also see it now as the best post -frankfurtians, a post-Marxist school born in the USA that influenced the 60’s (Marcuse, Erich Fromm and others), also lead years not only in Brazil, but in the East and in much of Europe, see the demonstrations in Paris.
In the late 1980s Peter Sloterdijk launched Critique of Cynical Reason, two decades after going to the Indica to study Eastern philosophy, he followed in an up-to-date fashion the steps of Schopenhauer (1788-1640) and Niesztche (1844-1900), and with philosophical works equally “post-illuminist” and critics of modern rationalism.
Now his readers’ interest is in his books on politics and globalization in his trilogy of the already published in portuguese Spheres I: Bubbles, work of 1998; and the next releases in Portuguese is Spheres II: Globes, and after Spheres III: Foams, he was writed in 2004.
In Neither Sun nor Death, Sloterdijk respond his fellow german writer Hans-Jurgen Heinrichs, commenting on issues such as technology mutation, media development, communication technologies.
Also has a good introduction to Sloterdijk´s thinking abourt theory of globalization, and a good critique of the neo-illuminism french currents represented by Giles Deleuze, Paul Virilio and Gabriel Tarde, and also makes connections with heidegger and the indian mystic Osho Rajneesh.
Truth & Method and Inductive Logic
17
Jan
As we have already explained, the revised sketch of The Problem of Historical Consciousness 
after the writing of Truth and Method, the maximal work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, is a good introduction to this work which clarifies many questions of contemporary philosophy: its problem which is clear Among others is its relation to social change, the question of method and especially what is true, but will have no less important minor points, such as dialogue.
Taking up the humanist tradition, he will re-read St. Thomas, St. Augustine and Vico, and clarifies the main problem of the philosophy of our time: “it differs from the classical tradition of philosophy because it does not represent an immediate and uninterrupted continuation of the latter.” Gadamer, 1997, p.35).
He criticizes the instrumentalisation of philosophical thought in the West that made him: whose relations with concepts became “a strange disengagement, whether their relations with these concepts are of the sort of erudite, not to say archaizing, or of the sort of technical manipulation , Which makes of concepts something like tools “(p.36).
He will critique what is called as the sciences of the spirit and will place as transcendent within an aesthetic dimension, denying the context of the logic of Stuart Mill, who claims to have a more correct formulation in the Treatise of Human Nature, and all the misconception of this concept.
He quotes the author J.G.Droysen, a scholar of the history of Hellenism, as an important attempt to give a new sense to history: “that the sciences of spirit should be founded in the same way as an independent group of sciences.” (Page 43).
He points to Stuart Mill’s induction logic, and even criticizes Scherer and Dilthey in stating that even these: “it remains the model of the natural sciences that guides the scientific self-conception of both” (page 44), it is easy to observe the consequences of A model that proposes to be critical of the romantic model, but ends up returning to its own core.
He asserts that even Dilthey came to the conclusion that Helmhotz made, that there is no method for the sciences of the spirit, and that method here: “If the other conditions, under which the sciences of the spirit are, Their way of working, perhaps much more important than inductive logic. “(Page 45)
We can not deny it, after all, Hegel wrote the Phenomenology of the Spirit, and even his critics sought a method to adjust it to historical consciousness, he clarified that the answer they gave “to this question is not enough … follow Kant, for being guided by the concept Of science and of knowledge according to the model of the natural sciences and to seek the striking singularity of the sciences of the spirit in the artistic moment (artistic feeling, artistic induction) “(page 45)
GADAMER, H.G. Truth and Method, London,New York: Continuum, 1975. (pages in Brazilian Edition).
Consciousness between epistemology and method
13
Jan
It is common sense that what we call interpretation is intimately bound up with the
method and worldview that we have, but in practice we stay in the “it’s my opinion.”
Gadamer goes deeper into this theme by saying that “what modern consciousness assumes precisely as ‘historical consciousness’ – a reflective position in relation to all that is transmitted by tradition.” (page 18), that is, “historical no longer beatifically hears the voice that comes to him from the past, but when he reflects on it, he re-places it in the context in which it originated, in order to see the relative meaning and value that are proper to it “(idem) .
And this sentence of interpretation “goes back to Nietzsche, according to which all statements derived from reason” are susceptible of interpretation “(p. 21).
However, he returns to Hegel to clarify that “the human sciences possess with the natural sciences, a link that distinguishes them precisely from an idealistic philosophy: the human sciences also pretend to constitute themselves as legitimate empirical sciences, free from all metaphysical intrusion, and They reject all philosophical construction of universal history (idem), and here we enter into the question of method.
The idea of adopting scientific methods of the natural sciences prevented the human sciences from taking a “radical consciousness of themselves” (idem), and asks at the end of the paragraph: “Why not rather the old Greek concept, Of method should prevail ? “(Page 21)
Aristotle uses this to explain the question of method: “The idea of a single method, which can be determined even before investigating the thing, constitutes a dangerous abstraction, it is the very object that must determine the proper method to investigate it”
The Brazilian translation has 71 pages, is easy and simple to read, and I consider it useful for an introduction to Gadamer’s masterpiece “Truth and Method”.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, “The Problem of Historical Consciousness,” in “H.-G. Gadamer,” special issue, Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 5:1, 1975, page number is brazilian edition
Consciência entre a epistemologia e o método
Sabe-se no senso comum que o que chamamos de interpretação está intimamente ligado ao método e visão de mundo que temos, mas na prática, ficamos no “é minha opinião”.
Gadamer vai mais fundo neste tema, ao colocar que “aquilo que a consciência moderna assume precisamente como ‘consciência histórica´- uma posição reflexiva com relação a tudo que é transmitido pela tradição.” (pag. 18), ou seja, “a consciência histórica já não escuta beatificamente a voz que lhe chega do passado, mas, ao refletir sobre a mesma, recoloca-a no contexto em que ela se originou, a fim de ver o significado e o valor relativos que lhe são próprios” (idem).
E sentencia: “esse comportamento reflexivo diante da tradição chama-se interpretação” (pag. 19), e explica que essa noção de interpretação“ remonta a Nietzsche, segundo o qual todos os enunciados provenientes da razão“ são suscetíveis de interpretação” (pag. 21).
Entretanto retorna a Hegel para esclarecer que “as ciências humanas possuem com as ciências da natureza, vinculo que as distingue precisamente de uma filosofia idealista: as ciências humanas possuem igualmente a pretensão de se constituir como legítimas ciências empíricas, livres de toda intrusão metafísica, e recusam toda construção filosófica da história universal (idem), e aqui entramos na questão do método.
A ideia de adotar métodos científicos das ciências da natureza, impediram que as ciências humanas tivessem procedessem a uma tomada de “consciência radical acerca de si mesmas” (idem), e pergunta ao final do parágrafo: “Porque não antes o conceito antigo, grego, de método deveria prevalecer?” (pag. 21)
Utiliza Aristóteles para explicar a questão de método: “a ideia de um método único, que se possa determinar antes mesmo de investigar a coisa, constitui uma perigosa abstração, é o próprio objeto que deve determinar o método apropriado para investiga-lo” (idem).
A tradução brasileira tem 71 páginas, é de leitura fácil e simples, e considero útil para uma introdução na obra prima de Gadamer “Verdade e Método”.
GADAMER, H.G. O problema da consciência histórica, 3ª. Edição. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2006.
Socrates, the good life and technology
22
Nov
Before ending the liberal education chapter, Socrates recalls his famous frase:
“knowing oneself” and takes up the idea that “an unexamined life is not worth living”, as his interlocutor Peter Pragma leaves for Grab a coffee and brainstorm. In topic 3 of chapter I: Of the technology and the larvae, the friend who had gone to have a coffee came across the broken machine and said that he would become a technician.
Socrates recalls the short-lived and simplistic character of choosing a profession, and Peter claims that he can not stand any more interrogations, so Socrates thinks of a way to change the very methodology that is the question, “maybe there is a way” and Peter is encouraged.
But it would be illogical for Socrates to abandon his method, which he does is call a young girl named Marigold Measurer (something like measuring the Daisies, explains the footnote on page 42), the girl agrees but is intrigued by Socrates, psychologist.
But Socrates says, quite to the liking of a more contemporary philosophy, that he is a “sort of conscientiologist … I am a philosopher,” Marigold asks if it is his department, which he readily refutes, it would be contradictory to have a philosophy department, already That philosophy is not a department..
The conversation unfolds with Marigold maintaining a certain secret of his work, but reaffirming that the works today have a certain “hierarchy” and questions the place of the philosophy, and finally Marigold says that works with genetic engineering.
Socrates then questions the role of technology in subordinating nature and suggests that we are only “friends” of it, asks “why would you like to conquer your mother? We only conquer our enemies, “is on page 45.
Asked if he would not be afraid to “lose control” of his work, Marigold claims that his work is serious, to which Socrates asks if a wine producer is sober, “would it be right for him to give his product to an alcoholic?” Page 46.
The dialogue on technology is still going on, but we can keep Socrates’ question.
KREEFT, Peter. The best things in life. Illionois; IVPBooks, 1984, (edition Portuguese: Campinas: Ecclesiae, 2016).
Better things of life
21
Nov
We continue reading Peter Kreeft, in Socrates’ alleged dialogue with 
Peter Pragma, are now talking about professions, and Peter says:
“PETER: Well, that’s what I’d choose: practical, not theoretical, sciences. Technology
SOCRATES: Right. So far we have mentioned three areas of study for you: business, practical science, or technology, and liberal arts. Do you see what each of them can give you?
PETER: Of course. Business: will bring money, power technology, and liberal arts pain.
They continue the dialogue and later Socrates says:
SOCRATES: And what are the ends for which power and technology are means?
PETER: Making the world a better place to live. Cars, rockets, bridges, artificial organs and Pac-Man.
SOCRATES: So, technology improves the material things of the world.
PETER: Yes, including our own bodies. That’s pretty important, do not you think?
SOCRATES: Oh yes. But I wonder if there should be something even more important to us. If we could improve our own lives, our own actions, our own behavior … “(Kreeft, 2016, 34)
It is not conclusive, but the reasoning is somewhat complete on page 35, where Socrates says about good and good:
SOCRATES: Well, not necessarily “better” in an absolute and unlimited sense, especially if we use “good” and “good” without defining them. … “and continues, but Peter refutes:
PETER: Politics and ethics? Impossible. I want something practical.
We will return to the question of technology in the next topic.
Pages in Brazilian Edition: KREEFT, P. As melhores coisas da vida. Campinas: Ecclesiae, 2016.
