Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

Orthasty was first staged in 458 BCE, and was the first-prize winner at the Athens Dionysiac festivals, although it was written by Aeschylus, it is unknown and unappreciated today. Tragedy is associated in our day, not by accident, pains, catastrophes, something where there are many victims, or even the unfolding of some violent action like a murder, a war or a serious natural accident, for the Greeks was something else.

Tragikós defined an innovative artistic form, or something that only occurred between the great events that changed the history. in Aristotle’s view, one of the first to study the impact of theatrical spectacles, the tragedy would be “an imitation of a serious, concrete action of a certain magnitude, represented but not narrated, provocative of Katarsis, catharsis, which is the purging of the emotions of the spectators.

Orthasty, of Aeschylus is therefore a great representative of this modality of theater, the play can be divided into three parts: in the first Agamenon shows the return of this character of the Trojan War, where he succeeded in killing his own daughter, Iphigenia, in sacrifice to the gods, but this is not well received by the mother Clytemnestra who wants to avenge the death of the daughter with the help of the Aegisthus lover.

In the second part Coéforas, narrates the return of Orestes, son of Agamênon, directed by the god Apollo, to avenge the death of the father, he is helped by its sister, Electra, that was maintained like servant in the attic of the castle by its mother, Clytemnestra And in the third part, Eumenides, brings the wrath of Clytemnestra, already dead, materialized in the Furies, which are seen only by Orestes and responsible for its madness.

It also narrates the judgment of the crime of Orestes: the murder of the own mother, that will be analyzed by the goddess Athena. Although the complex of Electra, which is not properly the love of children by the mother, but the desire of matricide observed in macho societies, the problem is actually justice and politics represented by the goddess Athena, proclaims a court to to judge the murder committed by Orestes, and it will be instituted forever, but the question that remains is why do gods need sacrifices?

We tried to respond in the next post.

The phenomenological psychology also uses several conceptions coming from the philosophical tradition, and to imagine that it is purely philosophical that derives from the ontological turn or only a psychological language, both are not truths, therefore can be so much can be linked in the psychological theory and the practice, like being Present in various fields, for example in communication.
If it is desired to achieve greater rigor and coherence in the ontological Being, it is necessary to resort to the conception of man of this proposal, making it explicit. (Heidegger’s Weltanschauung), which implies a “dasein” as written by Heidegger: “this being which is in each case we And which has, among other characteristics, the possibility of Being “(Heidegger in Being and Time).
All that exists is to be, but man is ontologically different from other beings, being received in his humanity in a world of concrete relationships without separating his natural being from his spiritual sphere, he must develop attitudes and actions to sustain his own life, It can be said that it is a dasein that has several rays of possibilities, so how to find its own ray, this is where the psychology and its deeper Being is placed.
As much as he seeks stability and security in various ways throughout history, man is always faced with existential issues that destabilize him and set him in motion, Hanna Arendt’s book The Human Condition can help a great deal.
Singularity and plurality coexist side by side in the difficult task of inhabiting the world and transforming it (Arendt, 2002), this seems very current and paradigmatic in this global time.
While Being that delimits an ontology, which is shown in its entirety, the singularity shows a human structure that is understood as biopsychosocial and spiritual.
The biological dimension is expressed in corporeity, to which man is permanently attached while he lives, so he can not separate it from its “substantiality.”
This substantiality is the singular form among the others of the same species, being at the same time limit and opening to the world through perception (Arendt, 2002).
From the perspective of Martin Buber (1923/2001), it is not through the transcendence of the mundane reality that one arrives at the spiritual level, but precisely by being immersed in it, from the relation with the Other.
Arendt, H. The life of the spirit: thinking, wanting, judging (Brazilian edition), 2002.

The book in the Brazilian translation of Sphere I – Bubbles, here in 2016, in Germany in 1998 (Spheren I: Blasen), talks about the Introduction of inspiration for bubbles, but the whole title is: THE ALLIES or the Inspired Community (the capital letter is Of the author), but I reversed the analysis to follow as the author writes.

The title has several spherical inspirations, but the most important is the G.H. Every, from 1887, Bubles, an oil painting of Sir John Everett Millais (1829-1896), where the author speaks of the oval balloon made by his “insufflator” and in the time that of life of a bubble, accompanies the life that Let it escape until it burst “at the same time a sigh and an exclamation of jubilation”.

The bubble, the object created, and its “insufflator, there is a solidarity that excludes the rest of the world” (Sloterdijk, 2016, p.20), and “exist together in a field strained by attentive sympathy.”

But gradually he outlines the purpose of this metaphor, “the child who follows his soap bubbles in the open space is not a Cartesian subject clinging to his or her locus of thought without extension, to observe an extensive thing in its trajectory in space” (ibidem) , In a clear reference to the Cartesian dichotomy between the thing and the extensive thing (res extensa).

Thus raises his first questions: “and what happens to who is not the breath of anyone? Every life that emerges is individualized, is it as such contained in a sympathetic breath? “(Sloterdijk, 2016, 21), the author goes to Schopenhauer’s question:” is it legitimate to think that everything that exists and is thematized would be wrapped in the care of somebody? ” (Idem).

The question you are asking is a reference to Heidegger: what do we mean when we say we are in the world? But it actualizes and reformulates it using the question of necessity: “In fact, necessity is known (Schopenhauer called it the metaphysical necessity) that everything that belongs to the world or to the being as a whole is contained in a breath, as In an indelible sense. Can this need be fulfilled? Can it be justified? “(Sloterdijk, 2016, 21).

Before arriving at the central point of its outline, modernity will ask the question which is a direct reference to Ludwig Wittegestein’s Logical-Philosophical Treaty: “Who first conceived the idea that the world would be absolutely nothing more than the soap bubble Of a breath that encompasses everything? What exterior would belong, then, all that is the case? “(Idem).

The question of modernity and its allies is outlined, which is why I left it for later.

SLOTERDIJK, Peter – Esferas I: Bolhas, Ed. Estação Liberdade, 2016. (Brazilian edition).