Arquivo para a ‘Método e Verdade Científica’ Categoria
Peace in information stage
24
May
Russia announces conquests in Mariupol and attack on
training barracks in Northern Ukraine, Zelensky speaks in Davos and is applauded, but the war is getting farther and farther from the end.
A novelty even on the path to peace is a new path taken by Germany and much criticized because it is not so hard on Russia, far from showing any sign of adhesion, Germany seeks a way of negotiation where peace can be thought of, speaking to a channel At the World Forum in Davos, Robert Habeck, Vice Chancellor of Germany, insisted that “nothing is inevitable, we are human beings and we can change the course of history”, seeing that a world war could break out.
In the opposite direction, China threatens to invade Taiwan, which has one of the largest armies per capita in the world, with state-of-the-art submarines and military robots, an army of more than 300,000 men and an air base of 600 fighters, including 141 F- 16V Block 70 at Chiayi Base.
It is small considering the strength and continental dimension of China in the event of a war, but last week the United States declared an unconditional defense of Taiwan in the event of war with China, finally adding more fuel to the fire in the tense world environment.
China has an active military personnel exceeding 2 million, with more than 3 thousand aircraft, including 120 Xian X-6, Tupolev Tu-16 version and 388 Chengdu J-7 MIG-21 version.
But the main fighter is the Chinese version of the SU-27, 450 Shenyang J-11, in addition to the Russian Sukhoi.
So a war with China would make Russia’s war seem small by the proportion and forces involved, but the threats with military training and exercises have intensified.
The world seems to be on the verge of generalized and terrible chaos, but as the German Chancellor said: “we are human and we can change the course of history”, starting from the defense of peace.
War advances with no prospect of peace
17
May
Finland and Sweden have already asked to join NATO and Russia
threatens with retaliation, having already cut off the energy supply to Finland, the fear of a conflict on the borders of the countries grows.
Various efforts were made at negotiations, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö spoke with Putin, also German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, both without any practical result.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe on April Wednesday, the first call made in the Biden administration, and the Chinese general said that no one can deny that Taiwan belonged China, relations are also strained with China.
The chances of peace in Ukraine are small, both Ukraine and NATO allied countries do not accept the annexation of Crimea and there is no possibility of accepting the separation of the Donbass region from Ukraine.
Internally, Ukraine retaken the Kharkiv region and reached the border, now the fighting is moving towards Izium, which is close to Donbass and thus attacking the Russian rear in the region.
On the other hand, Russian forces practically control the Mariupol region, with the last resistance remaining at the Azostal where an attempt was made to evacuate wounded civilians and combatants (last night it was done),, in addition to Odessa, which becomes the next war objective, isolating Ukraine from access to the sea.
Also several Russian bulk carriers have appropriated grain from Ukraine and it is important to remember that one of the largest grain producers in the world is Ukraine and this further tightens the crisis situation in grain distribution around the world, the scenario points to an increase in grain as well. , in addition to the impact that is already happening on fuels.
The hope for peace is always renewed, despite the tense scenario, and there are forces fighting for peace.
Being and listening in hermeneutics
06
May
Anyone who has hearing can hear, but it is less and less
common to listen carefully to the Other, this depends on the conception of Being that we intuitively have, which in more general terms means listening with the soul and the heart to what is being said.
The whole perspective of hermeneutical philosophy goes in this direction and it is not by chance that it has as a reference the work Being and Time by Heidegger, which among other things identifies language as the “house of being”, so to listen is to listen carefully to the Other, or in this case of hermeneutics: the text.
This development when it comes to text interpretation (but it can also be used more broadly for oral communication) is expressed as a hermeneutic circle and was more fully explained by Gadamer in his work “Truth and Method”.
Among the steps of hermeneutic “dialogue” is the recognition of preconceptions, not in the negative sense that is used in everyday life, but in the sense that we have a set of pre-established concepts when we start a reading or a conversation, the reading it is a listening of the author by the reader.
The immediacy and vicious circles of new media impede this circulation and accelerate the process that is called “swarm” by Byung-Chull Han or by “herd effect” in several authors who do not speak specifically of new media, but of dangers arising from processes such as war and denialism in the face of a Pandemic or dangers of various contaminations.
In the biblical perspective this means “my people listen to my voice and follow me” (Jn 10:27), in the current sense it is exactly the reading and interpretation of a text, and the hermeneutic methodology applies to this, it was even used in its beginning by Scheiermacher, even before Husserl.
In the biblical case, it is necessary to pay attention to the final part of the text (Jn, 10, 29) where we read that the Father (God) is the one who will snatch them and “no one will snatch them from the Father’s hand”, in this sense listen to it is also listening to the Holy Spirit through which we better understand decisions and paths adopted.
Being, interpretation and dialogue
05
May
The essential concept of philosophical hermeneutics
developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer criticizes the model of knowledge both of the romantic historical interpretation, which aims only to criticize or adhere to a reconstruction of the author’s intention (it is made mainly relative to the text) and has both a normative function when theological, when one looks at Being as language.
Thus, it corresponds to a requirement of meaning of the text, accepts the link with its content, does not aim to explain the theme or content of a text, accepts the binding character of the content, that is, it has an essential orientation to the human way of inhabiting the world , linked to culture.
To understand is, in this perspective, to apply, not in a mechanical or logical way (in the dual sense), but to translate the text into the very language of its concrete situation, in its entirety.
Understanding is like this, first of all, the act understood, applied to that situation or that something and thus has nothing to do with a doing and a technical knowledge, that is, the latter adds nothing to the way of being and the situation of the interpreter, which is mere automatic ability and cause-effect.
The rules of one’s own prejudices must then be put into play, opening the dialogue that they provide, thus a fusion of horizons occurs, then a new step of listening to the text, and only then is it possible to apply a meaning to the text and question up.
In this context, dialogue is possible, otherwise there is a dogmatic closure without the ability to listen to the Other beyond the preconceptions and intentions of readers and/or authors.
It is necessary to emphasize the need for mediation that is done through common ideas that are transmitted by the historical or literary tradition, for Gadamer, such mediation is what makes thinking and transmitting practices of relationship and communication, and without them there is difficulty in dialogue.
Phenomenology as a method for dialogue
04
May
Phenomenology is essential for a true dialogue because it
presupposes a “starting point” philosophically said, it presupposes an epoché (a suspension of judgment in the Greek sense) but the phenomenological epoché is a putting in parentheses, that is, it admits the dialogue with tradition or with the reader or interpreter of the text.
It emerged as a method in opposition to positivist thinking, through the studies of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), and as a method of philosophical investigation it will capture the essence and meaning of a certain thing, said by Husserl: “there is no consciousness, only consciousness. of something”, and this comes from a subcategory that is intentionality, Franz Brentano and Tomás de Aquino had worked this but only with a psychological or mental sense.
Said by Husserl it is: “the description of what appears or science that has as objective or project this description”, thus part of the idea that we project our intentionality when describing.
Heidegger will place it, retaking ontology now on a different plane from the psychological and placing it as a method: “the expression ‘phenomenology’ means, above all, a concept of method”, in this sense it will also be a break with idealism and traditional rationalism.
“One of the contributions of phenomenology to philosophy is in the way it treats judgments and meanings. Martín Heidegger does not separate reason from emotion, nor the subject from the object”.
The question of the existence of Being turns to the concern with the way of human experience, or our preconceptions or even our rationalizations, it cannot be isolated from the relationship with the world and with the Others, all contemporary philosophy seeks a a way of being objectified, isolated, whether objective or subjective, because this deviation is also observed in the field of poetics, subjectivity and religion.
The Being must represent a presence, a manifesto, or a relationship with the Other, and a requirement is the symmetry of this relationship, where each one is able to make a “void” to contain the Other, an epoché of their preconceptions, without which there is no dialogue.
A first look at this dialogue is the hermeneutic circle proposed in the figure above.
The peace of the pacific
29
Apr
There are several misconceptions about peace, some were
pointed out by Kant such as pacts that hide future conflicts, the just revolt against totalitarian regimes, but there is no way to build peace without peaceful ones, the idea that you want peace, prepare for peace. war is a mistake, or with the violent, act as violent, etc. hide small and large wars.
Every exercise of power is asymmetrical, points out Byung-Chull Han (The Swarm), in the book that makes an essay exactly on the new media, and that says that there is only symmetry if there is respect.
So, respect for cultures, the diversity of opinions and ideas, of religious freedom, of different types of personal choices, of course that do not imply disrespect for the Other, is a starting point for peace, so there must be peaceful ones to build peace.
The idea of more weapons, of more aggression that can intimidate opponents hides that there is no peaceful principle in these attitudes, that there is no respect as Chul Han asks, and for those peoples, countries and nations that have peaceful principles, such as Finland and India for example. , it is worrying to see warmongering attitudes.
On the other hand, Makron’s victory in France is an encouragement mainly due to the defeat of totalitarian thinking in the country that is the source of modern republican democracy.
Peace must also be the basis of any religious thought, admitting that there is something or someone superior should strip us of the pride of judging oneself superior to someone, some people, race or gender, but history shows that it was not always like that, I remember. here the Peace of Westphalia, which was a pact so that religions would not encourage hatred between states, with this the idea of a secular state.
In several biblical passages Jesus makes the first greeting to his disciples: “Peace be with you”, of course he speaks of the peace of the peaceable, and in the verse of the beatitudes he says that they will be called “sons of God” (Mt 5,9) , that is, they are not Christians if they do not desire peace.
Also to his disciples, Jesus, who appears resurrected in his third appearance and asks Peter insistently (Jn 21:15-17): “After they had eaten, Jesus asked Simon Peter: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” And he said again to Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter said, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” The third time he asked Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” and Pedro gets sad and says “you know everything”.
Yes Jesus knew that even among religious it would be difficult to understand peace and unity.
Perpetual Peace concept
28
Apr
Perpetual Peace was Kant’s political proposal, in a way it is expressed in the liberal view of thought about peace, with some nuances in countries from the Soviet period, but as a rule, the normal there is the Roman vision of the pax romana that was the submission of enemies.
As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant ( Divide et impera, p. 39), in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.
The work To perpetual peace was written by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in 1795. The uniqueness of Kant’s contribution lies in his faith in a perpetual peace that is built because reason has more strength than power, “… reason, from the seat of the highest moral legislative power, condemns war as a juridical way and, on the other hand, makes the state of peace an immediate duty, which, however, cannot be established or guaranteed without a pact between peoples: – there must therefore be a federation of a special type, which can be called the federation of peace (foedus pacificum), which would be distinguished from the peace pact (pactum pacis), since the latter would try to end a war …” (KANT, 2008, p. 17-18).
But when would it then be fair to make war? What would be the limit of reason? Kant speaks first of revolt within a nation subjected to a tyrant: “Is revolt the legitimate means for a people to reject the oppressive power of the so-called tyrant [non titulo, sed exercitio talis (‘tyrant in the exercise of power, not in your denomination’)]? The rights of the people are forfeited and no injustice is done to them (the tyrant) through dethronement; in this respect there is no doubt. However, it is most unjust on the part of subjects to claim their right in this way, and they cannot complain of injustice if they are defeated in this struggle and then have to endure the most severe punishments” (Kant, 2008, p. 47).
As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant (. Divide et impera, p. 39, in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.
There are interesting points in his proposal divided into articles: a republican civil constitution (today there are peoples with other forms of government and which are not always tyrannies), a “federation of free nations” as the principle of hospitality (the problem of migrants today) and then he makes a series of “supplements” to perpetual peace, but basically it’s a defense of reason.
It also touches on the interesting point, as we have already said with regard to world wars, that peace must not be based on possibilities that can open new future wars.
Today, it is necessary to analyze the light of the original culture of the peoples, not only indigenous and various pre or post-enlightenment nations (where a certain form of reason prevails, remember the Greek State and Roman law), and also the economic, war and now also cyber.
Perpetual peace isn´t or any other form of lasting peace must look to a more humane and fraternal civilization, without which any argument for war is possible.
KANT, I. A paz perpétua. Trad. Artur Mourão. Portugal: Universidade da Beira Interior Covilhã, 2008
Reason, Belief and War 2
22
Apr
The relationship of science and belief in Bourdieu’s lesson: “The paradoxical
enterprise that consists in using a position of authority to speak with authority, to teach a lesson, but a lesson of freedom … would be simply inconsequential, or even self-destructive , if the very ambition to make a science of belief did not presuppose belief in science” (Bourdieu, 1994, p. 62), can be better expressed by the principle of transdisciplinarity.
Establishes the Arrábida Transdisciplinarity Charter in one of its principles: “Considering that the contemporary rupture between an increasingly cumulative knowledge and an increasingly impoverished inner being leads to the rise of a new obscurantism, whose consequences, at the individual and social level, are incalculable”. (Freitas, Morin and Barsarab, 1994)
The idea of science based on calculus (including economics) or the physics that makes it possible to advance in the mystery of the infinite universe, with wormholes, black holes and dark matter, cannot do without the mystery that is beyond what man has already conquered.
On the political side, the belief in the modern state that would replace God and could establish perpetual peace (Kant’s philosophical project) as well as science as the summit of “reason” has already shown its limits, as has the fundamentalist faith, which already was with the Pharisees in the time of life, land of Jesus, has limits of ignoring science, even wanting a science of belief, the paradox presented by Bourdieu.
Neither Kant’s perpetual peace nor advanced scientific studies made it possible to avoid war and the world is once again on the verge of a new humanitarian catastrophe, and it is also worth noting that religious fundamentalism cannot abolish it like the “Decalogue of Assisi for Peace” signed in Assisi on March 4, 2002, although they still defend it today.
The Pharisees wanted Jesus to be involved in the war against Rome, which will take place in the 70s of the Christian d.C., with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Holy Temple as predicted in the prophecies, not because Jesus wanted it, but because of the war that men wished.
After the Jewish Passover, and the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus which was our Passover, Jesus appears to the disciples and the apostle who did not believe Thomas was with them, the first greeting of Jesus is: “Peace be with you” (Mt 20, 21), breathes the Holy Spirit on them and told Thomas that he wanted material proofs of his resurrection: “Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and place it in my side. And do not disbelieve, but be faithful” (Mt 20,27) and happy will say those who believe without having seen.
Kant, I. (2008) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Project. trans. Arthur Mourao. Ed. University of Beira Interior. Portugal: Covilhã.
Freitas, L., Nicolescu, B. and Morin, E. (1994)Letter of Transdisciplinarity. Convent of Arrábida.
Reason, Belief and War
21
Apr
The evidence of two world wars, where rationality was challenged by the
barbarities of the concentration camps, the atrocities committed, and the Hiroshima bomb is also included, give evidence that it is necessary to examine in depth what built what was called the reason passing through Kant’s critique of pure reason and the critique of practical reason.
At the opening of the book “Disenchantment of the World”, Pierre Bourdieu introduces his analysis of economic and temporal structures as follows: “Those who pose the ritual question of cultural obstacles to economic development are exclusively (i.e., abstractly) interested in “rationalization”. “of conducts, economics and describe as resistances, attributable only to cultural heritage (or, worse still, to one or another of its aspects, Islam for example), all omissions towards the abstract model of “rationality” such as defines economic theory.” (Bourdieu, 1979, pp. 11).
The recent history of our civilizational process develops the physical (and therefore only material) aspect and mathematical calculation, in particular the rationalizations of economic structures, when quoting Max Weber, the author explains: “the very character of the capitalist epoch [writes Max Weber] and – one at the root of the other – the importance of the theory of marginal utility (as well as of the whole theory of value) for the understanding of this epoch consists in that. just as the economic history of countless epochs in the past) has rightly been called “the history of the non-economic”. In the present conditions of life, the approximation of this theory and life was, is, and asks to judge, it will be bigger and bigger and will have to determine the destiny of more and more ample strata of humanity.” (Bourdieu, 1979, pp. 17).
His analysis is too extensive and almost complete (I will explain later) to be summarized here, but the aspect that interests us of the “non-economic” cultural cosmovision, which is that of belief and can be explained in a sentence of his about how he sees the relationship of science and belief: “The paradoxical enterprise that consists in using a position of authority to speak with authority, to teach a lesson, but a lesson in freedom … would be simply inconsequential, or even self-destructive, if ambition itself of making a science of belief did not presuppose belief in science” (Bourdieu, (1994, p. 62), which means that it is necessary to combine reason and belief.
The current war involves these economic (and ideological beliefs, which include religious beliefs), and it is thus neither a practical nor a theoretical reason, peace is possible if we limit beliefs to the common principle of defending peace for the civilizing process (already that the concept of progress is also a belief in a certain sense of “economic history”).
Bourdieu, P. (1979) O desencantamento do mundo: as estruturas econômicas e estruturas temporais. Trad. Silvia Mazza. Brazil, São Paulo: Editora perspectiva.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994). Lições de aula. (Lessons from the class). Brazil_ São Paulo: Ática, 1994.
The narrative of totalitarianism
06
Apr
It is not just about the war that is the apex of totalitarian action,
the attempt to submit peoples and governments to a unilateral truth, to a way of seeing the world that despises others and more than making a history of authoritarianism, it is necessary to understand its origins. and its narrative.
This is how Hannah Arendt faced the issue when she wrote in 1951 “The origins of totalitarianism”, she seemed convinced that after the end of the second world war the problem did not end there, there she talks about hell, the nightmare, the Metamorphosis of Kafda, the onion and even the ugliness of an omelet, among so many other things, when the stories of Auschwitz reached their hands.
When trying to describe the totalitarian experience, the dilemma Arendt faced was that this experience could not be explained, not by political philosophy or traditional concepts, it is not as the culmination of a process of developing something from a past.
I remember a striking sentence by Lygia Fagundes Telles, who died these days when she would have turned 99 on April 16, wrote: “There is no coherence to the mystery or logic to the absurd”, dictators and their narratives only have logic in systematic propaganda, and in a cheerleading than other fanatics who support him and identify with him.
This form of narrative that Arendt wrote found opposition in a contemporary such as Voegelin to which she replied: “I did not write a history of totalitarianism, but an analysis in historical terms of the elements that crystallized in totalitarianism” (ARENDT, 2007, p. 403) ).
He also wrote in the “Crisis of the Republic”, that the first fundamental difference between totalitarianism and the other categories present in history is the fact that totalitarian terror “turns not only against its enemies, but also against its friends and defenders”. “; a second difference would be its radicality, which makes it capable of eliminating not only the freedom of action of individuals as tyrannies did through political isolation., eliminating not only opponents but also unreliable allies, there is a clear parallel in the current war.
In her note number 81, Arendt wrote: “The total number of Russians killed during the four years of war is estimated at between 12 and 21 million. In just one year, Stalin exterminated around 8 million people in Ukraine alone. See Communism in action, U.S. Government, Washington, 1946, House Document No. 754, pp. 140-1”, again the similarity with the current War is not by chance, and after Butcha these days Mariupol (photo) will be able to live a similar drama.
The last topic of Arendt’s book is: “Ideology and terror: a new form of government”, anyone interested in avoiding totalitarianism just read it, it is likely that someone will become aware of this terror.
ARENDT, H. (2007) Origins of Totalitarianism. trans. Roberto Raposo. São Paulo, Brazil: Companhia das Letras (in portuguese).
