Arquivo para a ‘Método e Verdade Científica’ Categoria
Ontological difference and hermeneutic circle
21
Mar
Before the concept developed by Hans
George Gadamer, dialogue in Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle seemed to be built on idealist foundations, although it was not exactly this, as knowledge in hermeneutics does not occur through the revelation of the object to the subject, as was seen by Kant, nor is it a mere projection of the object onto the object, it is in fact an “appearance” in dogmatic basis.
Subject and object have their own horizons, the ontological difference explains them, although both are endowed with historicity, the ontic reality as explained in previous posts has a logical truth, in it there is a critique and overcoming of Husserl’s subjectivist (objectivist) phenomenology of transcendental, so idealism has already been overcome there.
Thus, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology gained prominence in the question of the meaning of being is posed as a privileged question, so the being of beings does not “is” in itself another being (Heidegger, 2002, p. 32), like Dasein ( being-there, pre-sentence) is the privileged being that understands being and has access to beings, it is part and essential condition of the human being.
Said by Heidegger: “this being that each of us is and that, among others, has in its being the possibility of questioning, we designate it with the term pre-sense.” (Heidegger, 2002, p. 33), but it is not subjective in the sense of being (entity), this Subject and object have their own horizons, the ontological difference explains them, although both are endowed with historicity, the ontic reality as explained in previous posts has a logical truth, in it there is a critique and overcoming of Husserl’s subjectivist (objectivist) phenomenology of transcendental, so idealism has already been overcome there.
Thus, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology gained prominence in the question of the meaning of being is posed as a privileged question, so the being of beings does not “is” in itself another being (Heidegger, 2002, p. 32), like Dasein ( being-there, pre-sentence) is the privileged being that understands being and has access to beings, it is part and essential condition of the human being.
Said by Heidegger: “this being that each of us is and that, among others, has in its being the possibility of questioning, we designate it with the term pre-sense.” (Heidegger, 2002, p. 33), but it is not subjective in the sense of being (entity), this The opening of being-there, that is, the being of this being-there is concern (cure, sorge), it is a light that gives clarity to presence, that is, that which makes it “open” and also “clear” For yourself.
It is the cure that founds every opening of the pre-sentence and the temporality that originally illuminates it. Heidegger states that only starting from the rooting of the pre-sentence in temporality is it possible to penetrate the existential possibility of the phenomenon, being-in-the-world, which, in the beginning from the analysis of presence, it became known as a fundamental constitution (HEIDEGGER, 2002, p. 150).
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (2002) Truth and Method II: Complements and Index. Translated by Enio Paulo Giachini. Brazil, Petrópolis, 2002.
Heidegger, Martin. (2002) Being and Time: Part I, Translated by Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback. 12th ed. Brazil, Petrópolis: Vozes.
Non-thought today
07
Mar
Heidegger’s text on Serenity, written in 1949 at
a ceremony commemorating the centenary of Conradin Kreutzer’s death, in his hometown Meßkirch, which, as it was also Martin Heidegger’s hometown, was called to speak at the event, book This is part of your speech.
The text of serenity reveals how much we are induced to a calculated thought that runs from opportunity to opportunity, it is fundamental to understand that what is attributed to the digital world, was already happening long before this, and is not restricted to the digital universe: “ this thought continues to be a calculation, even if it does not operate with numbers, nor does it use a calculating machine, nor devices for large calculations” (pg. 13), even long before the digital universe, he talks about it and says that it is not the one you’re talking about.
The dynamic that many attribute to the digital universe was already very present in modern man: “thought that calculates (rechnend Denken) never stops, never comes to meditate. The thought that calculates is not a thought that meditates (ein besinnliches Denken), it is not a thought that reflects (nachdenkt), it is not the meaning that reigns in everything that exists” (idem, pg. 13), that is, of the late 1940s and before modern computers.
It is worth translating the German words: ein besinnliches Denken (a contemplative thought) and nachdenkt (to think about) and das rechnend Denken (calculative thought).
Thus, for the philosopher there are two forms of thought: that which calculates and that which meditates, and it can be thought that the second does not perceive reality, “contributes nothing to carrying out praxis” (pg. 14), can lead to pure reflection, persistent meditation being “too “high” for common understanding” (idem).
The author says that the only correct thing is that the truth of a thought that meditates appears as little spontaneously as the thought that calculates, both require efforts.
The fact that contemporary man is linked to a way of thinking is because this is the current way in which thought was elaborated and trained, linked to rational and ideal logos.
However, he considers that each person can follow the paths of reflection within their limits and in their own way: “We do not, therefore, in any way need to elevate ourselves to the “higher regions” when we reflect. We just need to linger (verweilen) close to what is close and meditate on what is closest: what concerns each one of us, here and now; here, in this piece of homeland; now, in the present universal hour” (pg. 14).
Of course, Heidegger reflected on the celebration in his hometown, but this applies to all the events we experience in our lives.
Heidegger, M. (no date) Serenidade (Serenity). Transl. de Maria Madalena Andrade e Olga Santos. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget, s/d.
The partner and the next
29
Feb
The concrete relationship of social friendship is
only effective in each neighbor, the idea of generalizing social attitudes can be inserted into a culture, but it will only be effective if in the relationship with each person with whom we interact it becomes effective, otherwise it is discourse and ideology.
Paul Ricoeur’s text “The partner and the neighbor”, which is part of the book “History and Truth” not only modifies the concept of historical truth but also reveals that there is only a concrete social relationship to the extent that we are part of our various social circles and to each concrete personal relationship.
Continuous selfishness, prejudice opens the soul into abysses of separation with the Other, makes it a continuum of separation, exclusion leading to disbelief in love and social solidarity.
Changing our attitude, transforming selfishness into gestures of kindness and living in each specific relationship a love that is even superhuman that gives dignity and respect to each being that passes by us, is not altruism or a way of ignoring social conflicts, it is also raising the soul to a stage of happiness with others, and spreading hope.
While the partner relationship is only of personal interest, the partner relationship goes beyond these limits and increases the level of trust, inclusion and different approach to the partner:
When discussing the difference between these relationships, he discusses charity: “Charity does not need to be where it appears; Also hidden in the humble and abstract post office is social security; it is often the hidden part of the social”, Paul Ricoeur in Le socius et le Prochain (1954), and is translated in the 1968 book History and Truth.
The text reminds us that just as institutions can only have corporate relationships, they can also have interpersonal relationships, of affection and solidarity, which make them less cold and less bureaucratic, where we see not a customer or a service more, but a close one in which you may be interested.
I t is not by chance that it is a chapter on History and Truth, because truth is only established between true friends who are close, and if they are partners it will only be to be closer, while maintaining social appearance, even with a spirit of empathy, is not yet the true human relationship if the personal one is not realized in a concrete way.
Thus, social friendship must necessarily involve true love for each person who passes by our side.
Ricoeur, P. : História e Verdade, trans. F. A. Ribeiro. Companhia Editora Forense: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
(Português) O próximo e a amizade social
28
Feb
Paul Ricoeur’s text “Le socius et le prochain” (the partner and the neighbor)
has already been explored in this post, highlighting the difference between a limited temporal relationship of partner and a relationship of philia and friendship that can last a lifetime: the next.
We now want to reread the comment made by Henri Bergson on this text, in which he articulates that the “I” starts from a “we” that we construct as an “I”, but that it is not separate from this, so the question arises that “we ” it’s that?
Does it designate these other people that we encounter every day in our family and professional environments, or this diffuse presence of others, of “everyone” that, for example, we claim when we try to make someone understand?
It means that we act in a way that is compatible or incompatible with life in society: “what would happen if everyone liked you?” in fact, there are, to say the least, two very distinct relationships with others: others as structure and others as praxis.
By the first term, this basis is understood as the efficiency of laws, institutions, and even more so, the awareness we have of our incessant visibility in the eyes of society: what is done is done based on the possible existence of others, even when no one is physically “there”, by the notion of another as praxis, we must understand the actions through which someone else, however, this distinction corresponds exactly to what Paul Ricoeur wrote in his book “History and Truth”, written to differentiate between “partner and neighbor”, because not only in the business world, but also in politics and social groups, what is true can be related to some narrative of the “society” belonging to.
We can speak of the presence of the Other as a structure in the sense that the socius designates this place, this simultaneously implicit and legal consideration of an invisible, anonymous, almost abstract other, but at the same time omnipresent, a bit like conditional, who would never cease to be presente, manifest to us in the Present, to become present, but never physically (but mentally, constitutionally).
By “near”, Paul Ricoeur designates the immediate, punctual physical presence of another person I know. We have good experiences of being close in big cities, as there we experience many promiscuous situations (subway, queues, etc.), but at the same time time, this crowd with which I am forced to compose is not made up of “neighbors”, since we do not know them.
If we activate praxis with others, always passing through the “socius” structure, the relationship presupposes a margin of choice, of election, of desire for approximation or rejection, as if our gross salary and our net salary, what is taken away of our salary paid, through supervision by an administrative authority, the “organization”, the State, social security, etc.
Thus the partner is linked to a social “praxis”, while the next depends only on a choice of human relationship independent of the structural relationship to which he is subject.
Ricoeur, Paul (1968) “The socius and the neighbor”, in History and Truth (in portuguese: História e Verdade), trans. F. A. Ribeiro. Companhia Editora Forense: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Clearing and the illumination of consciousness
23
Feb
There are different experiences of consciousness
that are different from the rational, of course they are not free from autosuggestion and in a way they all are, because some level of permission we give to an experience that goes beyond our senses, the musical is the most accepted and common cultural one, the spiritual one is the most rare and subject to fallacies and manipulations, but they all make some sense.
The clearing that Heidegger speaks of based on Plato’s myth of the cave is not tied to the rational level, since its ontology is back to Being, and the deepest experience of being will never cease to have a spiritual and cultural touch, but this clearing is strongly linked not to a collective idea, but to the inner and deep Being of each man.
Would it be possible to enlighten conscience in a collective way, what in Christian terms is called “Pentecost”, revival, rest in the spirit and other names, yes and no.
Yes, it is if it is in fact an awareness that leads to human and spiritual elevation, not if it is just self-suggestion through emotional technique and collective suggestion, there must be no falsification of true consciousness and it must not be confused with fanaticism.
The growing global political, cultural and military tension can lead to a state of fanaticism, hatred and social stress never imagined, but it is possible for minds to become alert and a new cultural and spiritual vision to evolve towards a different path, a kind of “help ”.
Walt Whitman was a poet, essayist and journalist from the 19th century, poorly understood and today read and reinterpreted by many authors, although still little understood, he says in his poems:
“As in a faint, for an instant, Another ineffable sun dazzles me,
And all orbs I knew, and brighter orbs unknown,
An instant of the future earth, earth of heaven.”
It can be read on a social level, a cultural change, on a spiritual level (new heavens and a new earth says the biblical reading) and even on a political level.
The apostles of Jesus had this moment provided by the Master himself, they climb Mount Tabor and there they see him illuminated with two other figures (the reading says: Elijah and Moses, it would not be the Trinity) and the ecstasy of consciousness is so high that the apostles Pedro, Tiago and João want to stay there.
Was the Enlightenment an enlightenment?
22
Feb
To analyze the Enlightenment in the light of
Western philosophy, it is necessary to read, of course with an open mind, ontological metaphysics, from Cassirer, his criticism and analysis from the heyday of idealism in the 18th century, “who proudly called himself ‘ Century of philosophy’” (Cassirer, 1992).
This philosophy was considered to have “opened the way to that deepest order from which springs, with pure thought, all the intellectual activity of man, and where this activity must find its foundation, according to the profound conviction of the Enlightenment” (Cassirer 1992) .
The author observes that Hegel, considered “the first to take this path” as a philosopher and historian of philosophy, made a forgotten (Cassirer calls it curious) rectification, which diverges from the verdict that “the metaphysics of Hegel himself pronounced regarding the Enlightenment ” (Cassirer, 1992), recognizing its role and making a reconciliation with it (in photo, Frontispiciul for the L’Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, .
Having Kant as his main influence, Cassirer was also influenced by Herman Cohen (great exponent of neo-Kantianism at the beginning of the 20th century) and Paul Nartop (one of the founders of the Marburg school) and thus remained trapped in the idealism of neo-Kantianism, but there was still influences on the thoughts of Heidegger, Hans Georg Gadamer and Hartmann.
The scientific question in the 18th century was to find “a determined border between the mathematical spirit and the philosophical spirit” (Cassirer, 1992, p. 34), thus beginning a doubt that would last until the beginning of the 20th century when David Hilbert in a Mathematics Conference announced 23 problems that mathematics should solve to be considered complete, among them the second problem was the consistency of the axioms of arithmetic, that is, that arithmetic could solve any problem that was enumerable.
It was Kurt Gödel who demonstrated that this problem of the finite proof of the consistency of arithmetic is demonstrably impossible, in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which became known as Gödel’s Paradox, the system is either complete or finite, never both.
To help this collapse of scientific rationalism, quantum physics also proposed through Werner Heisenberg the uncertainty principle, which announced that it was not possible to affirm the position of an atom or an atomic particle in a given situation.
Idealism is still a strong current, even in scientific circles, but its logical, physical and mathematical bases have already been dismantled by science itself, philosophers of Science such as Karl Popper, Tomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos have already announced new postulates.
The consensus is that human thought needs a broader vision, a worldview that is not limited to the so-called exact sciences, recovers the importance of language, the study of Being and a transdisciplinary vision that releases the narrow limits of each area of knowledge. , without ceasing to admit the mysteries, beliefs and original cultures.
Cassirer, E. (1992) The philosophy of the Enlightenment. Trans. Álvaro Cabral, Campinas: Editora Unicamp.
Jonah and the resistance of the spirit
21
Feb
As we approach great tragedies, the Biblical allegory
of Jonah is interesting to remember, even the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk highlights it, even if he is not a Christian, it is good to remember that Jonah is also in the Quran and is an important character for Judaism.
The curious biblical passage in which Jonah was supposed to evangelize the city of Nineveh so that it would not perish, one of the greatest of his time, is believed that out of fear of the Assyrians, known for their cruelty, Jonah tried to flee on a ship to Tarshish, who suffered a strong storm, they discover that the reason is Jonah who is thrown into the sea.
At sea, Jonah would have spent three days and 3 nights in the belly of a whale and would then be thrown into the city of Nineveh to return to his mission. There he preached and Nineveh was converted.
Sloterdijk does not use the terms dualism or polarization, he uses it even before the current global polarization that causes bloody wars and great controversies, the philosopher uses the terms dyad, a relationship between two or more different people in which there is no center but rather polycentrism.
This is basic to understanding who Jonah is for the German philosopher, he sees him as a prophet and worshiper of the God of the Jews, whose duty is to establish the relationship between the divine and the human, and that for humans to inhabit the divine they need to know and reject the human losses in the world.
Sloterdijk’s central question in Spheres I – the bubbles, is where are we when we are in the world? And in the German language there is a specific word for being in the world and being WITH the world, the word is “vorhandensein”, which means “being-in-the-world”, which although it means something else for Heideggeer that would just be “dasein”, it takes on greater meaning.
For Sloterdijk the only bodies that are outside this dyad or this polycentrism “the only bodies that are located without duality in the world are those of the dead” (Spheres I), that is, every time you find yourself in a place you are there and with him, you see him and recognize him.
Where was Jonah when he was in the world? Inside the whale. The whale is part of Jonas’ consciousness that provokes him to think about the outside from the inside. Heidegger had already thought about this pure interior of which we are all victims, a radical and intrinsic space, our unique and first dwelling through which all our impressions, thoughts and affections permeate.
The relationship with the outside is then one of “tension”, it is not only a filter of the outside, but it is also a lens to understand everything, even the inside itself, so being on the “whale” was preparation for Jonas to face it, see that beforehand there is a storm on the ship that is “in the world” and it is thrown overboard.
Our inner path must “help”, illuminate and make us aware of what we are “in the world” and be something else like the world when we have this light.
Sloterdijk, P. Bubbles: Spheres I: Microspherology. Translated by José Oscar de Almeida Marques. Brazil, Sáo Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2016. (em english: Transl. Wieland Hoban, 2011).
The clearing and the truth
20
Feb
The concept of truth in Greek philosophy does
not arise from logic, mathematics or physics, the allegory of the Cave in Plato, where those in the cave see only the shadows and not the truth as it is, in Heidegger’s interpretation, he will demonstrate that forgetting the true Being of things produced by modern thought (Kant and Descartes) is nothing more than the necessary result of a metaphysical way of thinking.
This metaphysics underwent a change in determining the essence of the concept of truth: in this passage there was a transformation from the notion of truth as unveiling to the notion of truth as correction or correspondence of thought as the thing.
This interpretation begins by correcting the Greek word eidos and idea (Idea) by “aspect”, this aspect of an entity is not its mere appearance as perceived immediately by the senses, it is what the entity shows itself through what it presents itself.
It is in this self-showing of its aspect that the entity appears and can be captured by the intellect (Heidegger, 2007, p. 3), just as the eye sees sensitive objects in their external appearance thanks to sunlight, man “sees ” being in the light of ideas, thus Ideas illuminate the being of beings, make their essence visible (in Heidegger’s terminology: the entitative of beings), and allow the soul to contemplate it.
As Heidegger (2007, p. 6) states: “The aspects of which the things themselves are, that is, the eidee (the ideas in the Greek sense), constitute the essence in whose light every particular being, this or that, shows itself in whose showing itself what appears becomes newly uncovered and accessible”.
Heidegger states in a passage from Being and Time that the traditional conception of truth (this one from Kant and Descartes) is based on the premise that the essence of truth resides in the agreement of the judgment with the object (adequatio intellectos et rei) a correspondence (or omoiosis) without explaining what the notion of correspondence is.
The ontological proposition of showing what and discovering what it is (Heidegger, 2005, p. 288) is thus something that “discovers the being in itself, proposes, shows, allows us to see (apofánsis) the being in its discovered state” , reveals the being in itself, but the Being was forgotten.
As Heidegger states: “The true being of logos as apophasis is the aletheien”. Aletheia, the unveiling, therefore, is “the foundation of the original phenomenon of truth” (Heidegger, 2005, p. 288).
HEIDEGGER, M. (2005) Being and Time. Brazil, Petrópolis: Vozes, 2005. (in portuguese)
HEIDEGGER, M. (2007) Platón’s doctrine concerning truth. Eikasia, Revista de Filosofía, v. 12, Extraordinary I. (in Spanish).
Ethics and resistance
15
Feb
Hegelian idealist formalism establishes an
ethics, since it sees a fatality in man’s finitude, in the words of many thinkers his worldliness, however the categories used in phenomenology, where the thing in itself turns, there is the essence of Being.
It was Emmanuel Levinas who opened this essence to the relationship with the Other, and calls it an ethical resistance, declaring it as an epiphany, in the philosophical sense of apparition, which is an opening to exteriority to the infinite being, where this resistance can be manifest.
Thus, different from the idea of the openness of Being or idealistic transcendence, the relationship between the subject and the object, its exteriority is that which the inner Being manifests itself before the infinite, its openness to the Other requires an examination of conscience: we love or hate, we forgive Either we resent what is different, I favor ethics and moral behavior, or we relativize it.
Brazilian professor Brüseke clarifies: “It is curious how frequently concerns or even fears are being raised that mysticism weakens social morality” (Brüseke, 2000).
Thus, Levinas’s transcendence is a true opening of the Being to the outside world and life in a broad and totalitarian way (of course not in the authoritarian sense of the word), it can give the Being a true asceticism, a reunion with itself in the face of a metanoia, a complete change of mindset.
Open to life does not mean open to pleasures and momentary circumstances, but to find a path to our “ascension”, a daily growth even with obstacles and setbacks, the falsehood of “easy” paths is that they do not perform the “exercise” of true asceticism, they just get around it with palliatives (read Byung Chul-Han’s Palliative Society).
Resistance, a category also used by Edgar Morin for the contemporary world, is more than opposing “evil”, or an inner resilience, it is a resistance of hope, of believing that an alternative path is possible, that war cannot it is a way out, and that we will have a future.
Philosophy and science are not opposed to the spiritual growth of humanity, to a certain extent they can even be healthy complements to a balanced faith and a science that is in fact humanized, it is not about dominating nature but about cooperating with it.
It must start from personal attitudes and decisions, put into reflection and lived socially.
Brüseke, F. (2000) A ética da resistência. Cadernos de pesquisa interdisciplinar em Ciências Humanas. V. 1, n. 8, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Human fragility in the face of Infinity
14
Feb
One of the important works to understand the
linguistic shift from the point of view of ontology is the work of Emmanuel Levinas, highlighting here a work that addresses the entire issue of the impossibility of objectifying the Other and human limitation in the face of weaknesses such as vices, ethical difficulties and war.
Levinas draws part of his experience from what he experienced in the Second World War, where he was held prisoner by the Nazi regime, in addition to having his parents and brothers executed, he saw the atrocities of the so-called “enlightened reason” which proved to be violent and totalitarian, these experiences are in tension in his thinking, and are important in a context of threat of a new world war.
Ontology has its role within metaphysics according to the author, but not its primacy as that of first philosophy, the transcendence of the scope of “self” and “being”, since this movement has been unveiled (the categories of reality) veiling is a new veiling) returning the movement to the self, to the identical, to being and its preservation, not to the recognition of the Other.
In contrast to Heidegger, for whom the relationship between being and others is subordinated to a relationship with being in general and nothing interferes with the emergence of the self, Levinas understands that the self is not due to being, but to the Other, and thus this relationship It is fundamental as in Paul Ricoeur.
The author proposes in Totality and Infinity a new choice for understanding being in which exteriority is not sacrificed, thus the relationship with the Other and with the exterior “world” is a reflection and path to interiority, in which it finds a relationship with the all and infinite.
This relationship between the self and the face of the Other that presents ethical resistance, for the author, is through its epiphany, through its “appearance” (a fundamental category in phenomenology), that the exteriority of infinite being can manifest itself as resistance.
His thinking is more complex, but we can understand that the weakness and limitation of the self, if kept in tension with exteriority and with the Other, reveals the infinite and our relationship with it, which cannot be other than the recognition of its “ transcendence”.
Levinas, E. (1969) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, London: Kluwer Academic Pub.
