Arquivo para a ‘Método e Verdade Científica’ Categoria
The unit and the included third
04
Sep
Polarization, dualism and binary ontology (being is and non-being is not)
are so present in the human relations of the present that it is difficult to think of a third hypothesis, but quantum physics has already described it and more than its effect ghostly (Einstein, Podolski and Rosen called it and this effect was then known as EPR), there is an effect in real life, quantum computers are coming, and it would be good for philosophy to wake up from its rational sleep (which has no liquid) or solid), and awakened to a new reality.
The classic Aristotelian logic justifies the exclusion of a third term and it prevailed until recently it is it that is at the base of fundamentalist, racist and scientist philosophies, which also underlie the principle of the excluded third that separates “good” from “evil” (the manichaeism) according to this logic:
- Axiom of Identity: “A is A”
- Axiom of Non-Contradiction: “A is not non-A”
- Axiom of the Excluded Third: “there is no third term T that is both A and non-A”.
The logic of physics and also of scientism (it is not true science) establishes this, however the contradiction between identity and non-identity is observed by quantum physics, being called the principle of quantum superposition, whose effect was studied within physics called “Tunneling” observing particles that transpose the classically prohibited state.
The logic of the excluded third was first enunciated by the philosopher Stéphane Lupascu (1900-1988), where there is a third term T that is both A and non-A, its axiomatic formalism predicts that it coexists with the dynamics of heterogeneity (to which it belongs living matter and the complex universe), with that of homogeneity (which governs macroscopic physical matter), and thus there are different “levels of reality”, of course all scientism is in check.
This new logic (level Q) does not abolish the Aristotelian logic of “yes” and “no” (level C), since only two terms are not considered, but in addition to these a third (T) (see figure). The first to establish the different levels of reality was Barsarab Nicolescu (1942-), he described a change from one level of reality to another with laws, new logics and concepts specific to each level, and thus established the concept of transdisciplinarity, which also encompasses complexity.
This logic admits three pillars for transdisciplinarity:
- Different Levels of Reality
- Third Term Logic Included 6.
- Complexity
So it must be admitted, for example, that between two people there is a third level of reality in which none of the personal logics are subjected and can and must have sufficient openness to a new reality, from which a new horizon and a new perception emerges. of the truth.
It is not a matter of relativism where the truth does not exist, but rather a state of rigorous equilibrium, accepting that between the poles of a contradiction, there is a semi-actualization and an equal semi-potentialization for both poles, this is state T.
Mystery is not ignorance
25
Aug
Stories of cultures, of cultural traditions that involve the imaginary
, and the imaginary itself are shrouded in mysteries, but they should not be confused with ignorance or superstitions, this is what can be read in the book of the almost centenary Edgar Morin “Knowledge, Ignorance and Mystery ”. there is a lot about knowledge, something about ignorance and the essentials about mystery, Morin’s dosage is perfect and a good remedy for the pandemic.
He is preparing a book for the pandemic, but as he always anticipates the story I hope to read and I believe he is one of the few who can talk about the new name or the post-pandemic precisely because he emphasized in one of his conferences that the health crisis caught us by surprise and put us on our knees.
In addition to planetary books like “Terra Pátria”, about epistemology “The Method” in six volumes, it is one of the rare ones that ventured to tread new paths in our global dilemmas through “To Exit the 20th century” and “Before the Abyss” However, in this 2018 book, your leap is over the mystery without slipping through the easy paths of belief and ignorance, questions both the fetish of reason and materialistic determinism, among its various works are the Transdisciplinary Studies done in a Center of these studies in Paris with the philosopher, important for the digital world Michel Serres, recently deceased, and proclaims that with discipline and excessive specialization we can move towards a new “obscurantism”.
He clearly separates ignorance from mystery, for him “ We can only apprehend the real through representations and interpretations. The reality of the outside world is a humanized reality: we do not know it directly, but through our human spirit, translated / reconstructed not only by our perceptions, but also by our language, our theories or philosophies, our cultures and societies ”, and for him, the mystery is equated by transdisciplinarity as “the contradiction to which all in-depth knowledge arrives is not an error, but the last conceivable truth”.
He values mystery as a path of discovery and knowledge: “Complex knowledge is the necessary path to reach the unknowable. Otherwise, we remain ignorant of our ignorance. The mystery in no way detracts from the knowledge that leads to it. ”
He calls our current environment as having a “culture of cancellation”, a more resentful half-sole in the old ideological patrols, and they now seem to intensify with the return of ideological polarization, which in the post-war created a constant tension in all of humanity. Which reminds you when children cover their ears and emit mimetic chants (he calls gutturals) so as not to hear interlocutors who contradict them (if you never know that you may be wrong, you will be right forever), so the polarization and radicalization seems to come from nursery education. It is not only the natural environment that needs biodiversity, the cultural environment and democracy also needs it, as Morin says, in fact “they depend on biodiversity”, we are willing to live with what is different or we want to eliminate it, the answer given in global scale is frightening, it is no mystery to ignorance and contempt for the Other.
Morin, Edgar (2020). Conhecimento, Ignorância, Mistério (Knowledge, Ignorance, Mystery). 1st. edition. BR: Bertrand do Brasil.
Who is The truth for you?
21
Aug
What is certain is that the truth is who and not what because what
will only be an object and this truth could only be established by a dual relationship: from the subject to the object which he interprets, that is why we fall into relativism or into pure doxa, opinion, truth can only be established in the relationship with the Other, in Socratic philosophy, the truth is not with men, but is among them, in their relationality.
However, the establishment of this truth requires ontological unveiling, it is not simple because although it is intrinsic to being, what occurs from idealism is a great veiling of being, only from Heidegger will this unveiling be thought of, but we still remain at night of thought and culture.
Being in relation to objects, which is also intrinsic to being, it is a material substance, the Greek hylé, from which hilemorfismo (theory that adds hylé and morphé) arose according to which all corporeal beings are composed of matter and form , which from scholasticism is thought of as a substance.
The consequences of this ontological truth have an impact on philosophical anthropology, which studies how man can understand himself, so a metaphysical sense is recovered and man can also be discussed in an eschatological sense, from where he comes and where he will go, or teleological as conventional literature prefers.
Philosophers like Bernar Groethuysen affirmed that “the reflection on ourselves, always renewed reflection that the man does to come to understand himself”, already Landsberg will say otherwise: “conceptual explanation of the idea of the man from the conception that he has of yourself at a certain stage in your existence ”, but the question is up to you and everyone who or what (for the question not being directional) is the truth?
If the question is hilemorphic, man came from the dust and the dust will return, but there is an aortic response, especially for our day, its shape or structure may change and so there will be a change, what Fritjof Capra called the reinvention of man, and that I think as a Christian, a change in his soul.
After a long life with the disciples is the question that Jesus is also going to ask his disciples (Mt, 16: 13-14): “Who say that men are the Son of Man?” They answered: “some say that it is John the Baptist; others that is Elijah, still others that is Jeremiah or one of the prophets ”, but who today is for us, not for non-believers, even for Christians, he still seems to be an enigmatic, miraculous, historical, political character or was it even God.
The truth may seem too simple, not have a deep intricate logic, not be linked to any form of power or temporal politics, but what if He is the truth? how much would change in the life of the planet, how would our view of the pandemic, the distribution of goods and solidarity change?
To those who do not believe and if it is really true, it could be a great answer in times of pandemic and social difficulties, but his question is there.
Truth is ontological, is it logical or is it power
20
Aug
The sophists said that man is the measure of things (Protagoras),
not to affirm any ontological principle, only to reaffirm the current status quo that ultimately is power, they used the art of persuasion (Gorgias) for this and lastly they affirmed the convenience of the strongest (Trasímaco), almost all appear in the dialogues of Plato, through the dialogues of Socrates) and whose concern was to contest them to affirm the democracy of the polis.
Then we lived for several centuries organizing the laws until the transition from the Greek city-state to the post-middle age towns, where liberalism will grow until it becomes the modern state, creating the concept of nation and the social contract that governs a specific people .
For the modern epistemological view, truth is linked to the object (the thing itself) and this makes it relative, since it is subject to space, time and categories, this concept comes from Aristotle, but it was on him that the thought of middle ages were divided between nominalists and realists, but for both and also for Descartes who will establish the res-extensive (matter), the res-cogitans (thinking thing) and the divine res (perfect, infinite thinking thing).
It is Kant who makes the connection of the thinking thing about the object becoming relative, since such truth is to the knowing subject having then a subjective face, proper to the subject, for him the “thing in itself” (the object) becomes “The thing in me” (subject to subjectivity).
This means that before the object, the conscience develops the work in the production of the truth according to the space in which that object is occupying, the time that it is situated and in which category it fits, then it is a matter of categorizing and organizing the objects around concepts.
It is not difficult to understand that this creates a logical structure that will initially create a positivist logic and later a logical empiricism, or a neologicism, in both currents any metaphysical aspect is denied, so logic is no longer a function of an argumentative construction , but from a calculation of propositions that follows a logical structure, ultimately it is also what justifies power and its machinations.
We return to the sophist narratives, the idea that it is the power that says what is true, so it is a matter of conquering it many times in a logic in which the ends justify the means, thus corruption is justified, the absence of virtues morals and even death.
The ontological truth seemed to have succumbed, but it was hermeneutics and phenomenology that brought modern ontology back to its roots, Franz Brentano will use a subcategory of the ontological concept of consciousness, by elevating intentionality to a higher category and making it a “mental phenomenon” .
Husserl, a student of Brentano, will recreate the intentionality and remove it from the psychological aspect still with an empiric remnant, and will say that it only makes sense to call consciousness, the “awareness of something”, this means that there is no awareness of the thing-in- itself, but the intentionality in the awareness of something.
Intentionality distinguishes property from mental phenomenon: being necessarily directed towards an object, whether real or imaginary. It is in this sense, and in Husserl’s phenomenology, that this term is used in contemporary philosophy, also by Heidegger, but which will recover and transform the idea of Being.
However, it is necessary to remember that Heidegger in My Way in Phenomenology, was due to the reading in 1907 of Brentano’s dissertation written in 1862: “The multiple meaning of being in Aristotle” (Brentano, 1862) and this meant a resumption of the path of his master Edmund Husserl.
Heidegger, unlike Brentano, denies the fundamental characterization of being as a substance, since, Brentano was still linked to the medieval interpretive tradition, disregarding the dimension of the role in language, for this reason he will properly say that his Dasein is a “new question” .
The true-being (the ontological truth) as being-discoverer [Wahrsein (Wahrheit) besagt entdeckend-sein] is the way in which aletheia appears, it is what Heidegger calls unveiling, taking it literally (but translated that is already an interpretation):
“The statement is true means: it discovers the being in itself. He enunciates, indicates, “lets see” (apophansis) the being in his being and being discovered. The true-being (truth) of the statement must be understood in the sense of being-discoverer. ” (HEIDEGGER, 2009, p. 289)
HEIDEGGER, M. (2009) Ser e Tempo (Being and Time). 4ª ed. Trad. Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback. (Brazilian edition) Petrópolis: São Paulo.
The pandemic and the doxa
18
Aug
Mere opinion on topics as complex as the treatment of the pandemic 
exposed the world to mere opinion or “doxa” as the Greeks called what was opposed to episteme or organized and systematized knowledge.
The number of curious solutions in the fight against the virus is enormous: using lemon to ozone, the remedies that are effective for other diseases such as the use of chloroquine for malaria, uses of teas and hot water, certain fruits and vegetables, FioCruz that accompanies the Oxford vaccine development carried out a survey, which gives 73% of the news about coronavirus cures as false, mostly home recipes with no effect on the disease.
All life in Plato’s time (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC) happened around the polis, where there was already the citizen of the polis, the politician, but still dominated the sophists, who sought only arguments to favor power , without worrying about justice and truth.
In the book Plato’s Republic the term episteme, which previously supported the possibility of being a skill for something, now acquires the content of knowledge full of certainty, an evident knowledge that is linked to the reality of Eidos (the Idea for the ancients), with this episteme is true knowledge and totally opposed to doxa, reduced to simple opinion.
It is in the relationship between epistemology and ethics, that it is possible to consider the action from a doxa point of view, although it does not mean a basis for this type of ethical knowledge in Plato, as he will appear with Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), in particular in his book “Ética a Nicômaco”.
The problem of determining these concepts by linking them to ethical issues appears in the first dialogues until the Republic, which remains afterwards in the dialogues about the Laws, making it possible to address this issue in later dialogues.
Plato uses the concepts of nous (Republic VI 511d4) and noesis (Republic VI 511e1), the doxa is in the world of sensitive reality, while the episteme is in dianoetic knowledge (dianoia, it is the way of thinking lower than noesis) that its object is the noeta, but they are inferior to the dialectic (República VII 533d).
Aristotle will deny the existence of eide (pure thought) in Platonic terms, so his episteme will designate for him the knowledge of the necessary causes (it is developed in the first analytics) and consists of demonstration (apodeixis) and sensation (aisthesis) becomes if necessary for the episteme.
In order not to complicate too much, the Greeks are, it is in Metaphysics (E 1, 1025b-1026a.) That the term episteme will designate a systematic organization of rational knowledge, thus coming to point to theoretical knowledge, in opposition to practical knowledge and poietic (Nicomachean Ethics VI 3, 1139b14-36).
Whatever the form of systematic knowledge, science has its ways and to deny them is to put all of humanity to the test, neither home recipes nor vaccines without the conditions for testing are acceptable, caution is necessary, we have already paid a price too much for deaths in the pandemic, the cure is to eliminate the possibilities of reinfection and side effects, it is the dose of the poison that makes the medicine, but the reverse is also true.
Post-God or human reinvention
13
Aug
A few days ago I read in Folha de São Paulo (in an online note) that
the famous mystical physicist Fritjof Capra (Tao of Physics) said that the pandemic is a “Pandemic is the biological response of the planet”, and also in his conference in the Frontieras debate of Thought about the “Reinvention of the human”, in which also spoke the economist Paul Collier and french writter Alain Babanckou.
In his lecture, he supposes an awakening in 2050 and visualizing the world and its post-pandemic transformations, already well defined, what he and the futurist Hazel Henderson propose are imaginable perspectives, as which relatives for the past verified as flaws and human conditions which changes they happen to be perceived, I think so, thinking about a distant scenario, I thought a much more valid reflection than thinking about next year.
In the thinking of the Austrian physical-mystic he considers that an expanded consciousness would help to overcome the cognitive limitations (and cultural addition), the mistaken assumptions and ideologies that are called back in the prices of the 20th century, and development and productivist metrics, such as the GDP, ended up allowing huge social and environmental losses and the destruction of the functions of planetary exosystems.
Little is said about the persistence of Religions and the answers they too can give and the role they will play in a post-pandemic stage, although nicht made explicit by the physicist and not even by economists who also come from the inorganic in the thematic conversation of the Swans, of the earth whether by chemical processes, by hands or by divine breath, the truth is that we were created, so a complete nicht eschatology will speak only of the post-human, but of the pre-human.
Where do we come from, from the dust of the planets, now that we can look at thousands across the cosmos like telescopes that are like the reinvention of Galileo’s spyglass that shook the 17th century, we are now looking at an infinitely more enigmatic, like particles of God and as a collapse of matter in black holes, what awaits us is not just a post-God, but the reinvention of a cosmology capable of also giving man his crisis, whose pandemic is just a symptom.
Peter Sloterdij wrote in his “Post-God”, that Greek mythology: “had predicted the revenge of time against eternity from afar, when the allusion that even the immortal gods would have to learn to live with a destiny of higher order ”(Sloterijk, 2019, p. 12) and the Greeks called this Moira, but this destiny also foresees the eschatological Matris in Gremio, described by Sloterdijk himself in“ Spheres I: bubbles ”(see our post).
Taking advantage of the allusion to the rebellious nature of Fritjof Capra, and if it has not yet taken place completely, the post-pandemic can predict an aortic rebellion from outside the planet, and if Moira still wants to have one last word, which was three and not just a Cloto, Láquesis and the Atropos, that wove the threads of the destiny (figure).
While Cloto means to spin, Láquesis means to draw, remember the meaning of Fortuna for the Greeks, and, Atropos, means to move away, in an eschatological sense, that is to say an end, but not an end, it may be that after everything ultimate end and then there is a new hope, perhaps a new “enlightenment”.
Whatever these departures from reality are, they all become important in a tragic moment, after all tragedy is not what it seems, and the romanticism and illusion of modernity is what showed its true face of horror, wrapped in beautiful words, promises of happiness and “well-being”.
Christians, in which I include myself, aware of this “night of God”, have hope for a new aortic manifestation, after all it is at the beginning of human life and should also be in this reinvention of the human for a planet that is home to everyone and not just a few.
Sloterdijk, Peter. (2019) Pós-Deus (Post-God). Trad. Markus A. Hediger. RJ: Vozes.
If Europe (and the world) awakens
07
Aug
Peter Sloterdijk wondered if a Europe destroyed by war in 1945
could be seen as a metaphor for a modern empire and enlightened on the eve of a new century, it was a more optimistic environment of that time, but the philosopher had already predicted the violent turn of American politics and a possible world crisis.
The pandemic appears to have united Europe, except for the Kingdom that claims to be united, but it seems that it is not, a recovery policy that sustains the “domestic” economy, that is, those companies and businesses that traditionally support different European nations may have a new injection of spirit (and money) to recover.
Sloterdijk’s book If Europe Awakens, from 2002, had despite some optimism of a “new Europe”, the idea that Europeans do not turn to their historical-philosophical foundations to seek an orientation based on a “mitomotricity” that goes from against the founding myths that resulted from cultural, philosophical and political splendors that Europe considers itself heir, but can we think about this after a tragic crop of totalitarianism and world wars?
Edgar Morin prepares his world about the pandemic and despite all expectations, he always so optimistic now seems not to be, in an interview in November 2019 he stated that although “we walk like somnambulists towards a catastrophe”, he did not leave one tip of hope “resisting the dictate of urgency … hope is near.”
However, the climate is gloomy, with clouds hanging over China and the US, and relations with Turkey and part of the Arab world that is not so friendly with the West, what answer a boiling world may have, is the question that remains.
The spirits are high and the society of speed and fatigue does not seem to have given much space for a break, even though the pandemic imposing this on everyone, after 6 months it seems that there is no more balanced policy that convinces citizens to civility, compassion and solidarity.
In the midst of a rough sea, the disciples when they saw Jesus walking on the waves shouted “it is a ghost”, but soon He said to them “Courage! It’s me. Do not be afraid!” (Mt 14,26-27), the crisis is for the brave and the visionary, that leaders and leaders really fraternal and solidary help us in the post-pandemic and in a world with dark aspects.
Simplism or complexity
06
Aug
William Ockham proclaimed that between two explanations about a certain
phenomenon one should stick with the simplest one, this principle became known as Ockham’s razor, but what to do with problems that are complex, as is the case of the current crisis of the corona virus, the more simplistic explanations are fake News, conspiracy theories or simple lies.
The complexity problem came from Biology, the ecological problem and the ecosystems showed that the phenomena are more interconnected than previously thought, there is a whole food chain going from the simplest, cellular to the most complex organisms and this includes the man.
However, the Arrábida Charter of Transdisciplinarity, signed by serigraphists Lima de Freitas, by Barsarab Nicolescu, written in 15 articles, highlighted “… the contemporary rupture between an increasingly accumulative knowledge and an increasingly impoverished inner being, leads to the rise of a new obscurantism, whose consequences on the individual and social level are incalculable ”(Arrábida, Portugal, 1994).
As method was Edgar Morin who thought about complexity, written in six volumes: Method 1 – The nature of nature (1977), Method 2 – The life of life (1980), Method 3 “The knowledge of knowledge” (1986), Method 4 – “Ideas: habitat, life, customs and organization” (1991), Method 5 – “Humanity of humanity: human identity” (2001), and Method 6 – “Ethics” (2004), however the epistemological question developed in a December 1983 lecture in Lisbon, which became a book, published in Portuguese in 1985.
In essence, thinking about complexity is outlined in three new concepts: the dialogical operator (understood as different from the dialectic), the recursive operator (which means understanding the consequences of acts, in a cause-effect relationship that produces a new cause) and the holographic operator (the part is in the whole and the whole is in the part, it does not separate all and part).
So it can be summarized from Transdisciplinarity to the Complex as an essential problem of humanism, we are 100% nature, 100% culture without dualism between them, solving the question of what we are as a “natural” man, as well as the ecological problem as well as the humanism are intertwined, the problem of nature is a human problem and the fundamental problem of man is his relationship with nature including the Other as part of his nature, regardless of race, color.
Cultural differences of the pre-Socratic and the modern
05
Aug
It was Karl Popper who drew attention to the origin of modern Enlightenment,
so it is not possible to criticize contemporary Enlightenment idealism and empiricism without an attentive re-reading of the history of Western thought.
First because it is the history of thought, much of the civilizing night is in the crisis of thought, warns Morin, and also Marx when making the Critique in Theses on Feuerbach (1845) actually pointed to the idealism present in modern Christianity, but the root Jewish-Christian is another, the division occurs in two points of history the liberation by the Maccabees (167 BC – 37 BC) and the incursions of the apostle Paul.
Returning to the pre-Socratic Enlightenment, the root of Western thought, Popper made a foray into the three greatest philosophers of this period Xenophanes, Parmenides and Heraclitus: “the greatest and most inventive period in Greek philosophy”. The author notes that the “adventure of Greek critical rationalism”, and identifies a principle of crisis already in Aristotle who after developing his episteme: “he killed critical science, to which he himself made a major contribution.”
As Popper develops “it was this conception of demonstrable knowledge, presented by Aristotle, that eclipsed the critical attitude developed by the pre-Socratics, and thus all the modern inheritance of this demonstrable“ logic ”, although admitting Popper’s development as this enlightenment having ontological (and not logical) roots, the famous maxim of Parmenides: “being is and non-being is not”, with no third hypothesis besides dual logic and an included third, besides the classic excluded third, there is no third hypothesis.
Only in the 20th century with quantum physics formulating the already proven hypothesis of a third state of matter called “tunneling”, and Barsarab Nicolescu’s proposal for the third included, can one be thinking about a being and not be simultaneous, in the Trinitarian god there is also a third possibility.
Only in the 20th century with quantum physics formulating the already proven hypothesis of a third state of matter called “tunneling”, and Barsarab Nicolescu’s proposal for the third included, can one be thinking about a being and not be simultaneous.
It is not a question of affirming the paradox of the existence of something and its contrary, there would be an evident reciprocal annulment, there would be no possibility of predictions and the scientific approach of the world would be collapsed, which Quantum Physics admits, and Barsarab is based on this. is that there are countless immutable connections on which to experiment or interpret results, it is both Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” and Popper’s “falsifiability” method.
It does not abolish the logic of Yes and No by Parmenides and Aristotle, it only admits a third hypothesis, the philosophical, social and political consequences are evident, the scientific is what was formulated as transdisciplinarity, while we are confining the third to a specialized disciplinary theory hypothesis seems unfounded or non-existent, if it looks from another angle it appears.
Edgar Morin’s complex thinking goes in the same direction, but let’s leave that for the next post.
POPPER, K. The world of Parmenides: pre-Socratic enlightenment. Portuguese translation: Roberto Leal Ferreira. BR-SP: UNESP, 2014.
.
The dark night of humanity
04
Aug
Watching political debates or even relevant issues of public life, a brief look at
culture and religion, any angle that looks at the moment aggravated by the pandemic, it is relevant to point out the confused features of this civilizing moment.
It is a fact that we have already been through another pandemic, in frightening numbers the so-called “Spanish flu” in the middle of the 1st. world war, it was a great and humanitarian disaster that challenged humanity, and even then came the second war, the concentration camps and the Hiroshima bomb, but the contours of this moment seem even more serious, there is a crisis of thought.
What can be observed are phrases made with a doubtful impact, appeals to impossible optimism in the face of the pandemic scenario or the hope “after all this is over”, however as the vaccine does not reach reality it imposes it, even on the wise on duty a little sobriety, but still without the solidarity and humanity that would be desirable.
The crisis of thought already pointed out by Edgar Morin, Nicolescu Barsarab and many others, in addition to the scientific and technical debate, is the difficulty of composing elements that should go beyond the limits of specialties to solve problems beyond the disease, the social and the religious, to tackle the problem together would require an overall view and not an impoverished disciplinary view of specialists.
When less is seen by pure and simple analysis, the darker this night becomes, the foundations lost, even if the civilizing foundations can be overcome: the Greek culture, the Judeo-Christian religiosity that so many scholars had, also the Islamic with Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Khwarismi and more recently Abdus Salam, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.
Science is still strongly linked to the positivism and logicism of two centuries ago, while Karl Popper, Tomas Kuhn or Bachelard are still little known and confined in circles of “experts of the scientific method” which indicates a shallow reading of these questioners of conventional science.
The last century gave us Gustave Klimpt, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Salvador Dali, the bold architecture of Antoni Gaudi, by Brazilian Oscar Niemeyer, but the straight façades, the abuse of glass and crystals that appear for the first time in the Crystal Palace (photo), English architectural structure of the 19th century that invoked a recreation center for “education of the people”, cited by Sloterdijk and his disciple Byung Chul Han as representative of current architecture, as centers of consumption and “an architectural form was proclaimed as the key to capitalism . condition of the world ”(SLOTERDIJK, 2005, P. 279).
The Creator’s greatness and daily novelty are a stark contrast to repetitive, outdated religions that say nothing to the world today, about the pandemic oscillating between simple adherence to current discourse to models of solidarity and defense of life that are too fragile for tragedy pandemic.
SLOTERIJK, P. Crystal Palace, Chapter 33 of in Globalen Inneren Raum des Kapitals: Für eine philosophische Theorie der Globalisierung (In the Global Inner Space of Capital: For a Philosophical Theory of Globalization). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2005, pg. 265-276.
