Arquivo para a ‘Sem categoria’ Categoria
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.
Exegesis and Hermeneutics: dichotomies
04
Nov
Any text out of context is critical, but what exactly is the context, which
means the terms in the language of the time it was written and mostly what the exact interpretation that can give him is hermeneutics, since exegesis depends only on the interpretation.
The first great fallacy is that one is of biblical origin, in this case exegesis and other Greek origin fallacy because both are of Greek origin, Exegesis (the ἐξήγησις Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι “take out”) is an interpretation or critical explanation , although it has the particularity to the religious text, while hermeneutics comes from the Greek “ermēneutikē” which means “science” and “art”, but refers to the god Hermes, who gave rise to language and writing.
If we consider classical antiquity, since hermeneutics is more complete because it means studying the language, literature, culture or civilization in a Historical view in written documents, while not explicitly speak of memory, speech culture and literature.
Already pointed out here that was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), in the early nineteenth century, hermeneutics receives one of the goals was to unify the Biblical hermeneutics and law, so called universal hermeneutics, had profound influence on the thought of Dilthey and Heidegger.
Heidegger says that understanding has a “circular structure” from which comes the hermeneutic circle: “Any interpretation to produce understanding, must have understood what is going to interpret” (Heidegger, Martin Being and Time, New York: Harper & Row, 1972).
Wilhelm Dilthey, says the explanation (itself the natural sciences) and understanding (own science of the spirit or human sciences) would be in opposition that is, “clarified through intellectual processes, but we understand the cooperation of all the sentimental forces in the apprehension by dipping the sentimental forces in the object.” (PALMER, Richard Hermeneutics:. Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidgger, and Gadamer Evanston. NUP, 1969).
Paul Ricoeur wants to overcome this dichotomy, for him to understand a text is to chain a new discourse in the text of the speech, because on the one hand there is no reflection without meditation on the signs; on the other, there is no explanation without understanding the world and yourself. (Ricoeur, Paul. Theory of Interpretation, Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1976).
The dialogue impossible
15
Sep
In the political field and the scenario that it is presented in national and
international field, remember here Trumph versus Hillary the edge of one of the largest and most impressive witnessed campaigns in American history, a time that Donald Trumph seems like a character out of some banana republic dictators and not a great country.
Lack wisdom, some real rigor and even common sense, but let’s look at it another way, what happens in the knowledge of mankind.
At the edge of the second world war many were the signs of decay and conservative arrogance, but looking thought we could see: the circle of Vienna, but this was the Marburg School passed by Ernest Cassirer, Paul Natorp (1854-1924) and Hermann Cohen (1841-1918) who had published Theorie der Erfahrung, the starting point of this group.
All agreed that the main emphasis was the “theory of knowledge” and therefore will be in the epistemological chain, while elsewhere was reappearing, but with a new hue, ontology through the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), of where they came from his student Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and then Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) and Emmauel Levinas (1905-1995), and many others of course.
What was at stake between the apparent debate between gnoseologies and ontologies, Popper (1902-1994), Lakatos (1922-1974) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) are not the same question about the thought of what is knowledge and science also is in play between ontologies, because since Husserl, I think his teacher Franz Brentano should be evaluated part, to Levinas and Ricoeur, can be thought so, from where the knowledge but of being, and not part of being that is the truth, that is, the question is knowledge, hermeneutics that is metaphysical and scientific, then it is in the three fields, although targeted.
For something thoughtless and totally new, Schleiermacher considering the Bible as a text of historical-literary nature, proposed a method which now serve to elucidate not only the Scripture but also of all the texts that possess this nature, under this influence Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) reexamines Heidegger and proposes the hermeneutical circle, reviewing the pre-concepts, proposes the fusion of horizons and the reading of the author, resurfaces the field of hermeneutics now on linguistics and ontology, new ample space for dialogue.
