RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘Information Philosophy’ Categoria

Phronesis and serenity

28 Nov

It is no coincidence that Gadamer adopts Phronesis as one of the key elementsin his discourse on Truth and Method, incompletely translated as prudence, the term actually to be confused with “wisdom” practice of serenity, free translation.
This is because in our view, Gadamer is a rehabilitator of practical philosophy, those who call for practicality, objectivity (sic! Idealist), are impractical for lack of wisdom, impulsive and active, typical of the society of fatigue.
In the Greek sense, ethics is added, but it is not a private knowledge in the moral sense, but public and social, which aims to minimize exacerbations of ego self-impulsiveness, when placed in a perspective of the work of art reaches a level of universal principle.
This includes the work of art because it was the excessive centralization in the self that reduced the relation of ethics to aesthetics, public amorality, slavery is not a new aesthetic, not even the negativity sometimes necessary to art, is its absence by lack of relationship with ethics and the training process.
Gadamer retrieves phronesis from Aristotle’s proposal in the Nicomachean Ethics, where he seeks to establish the articulation between the universal and the particular, still more between the individual and society, within historical forms of life, but with a common ethos.
One can thus establish a relationship with education, at a time when one talks about a school without a party, one has to think that there is another, without wanting neutrality because it will be an illusion, we explore in a post to follow.
We need to establish the relation of the phonesis with the techné and the episteme, which is the theoretical knowledge and know-how of techné, which is etymologically linked to art (τέχνη) and to crafts.
The harmony between the three forms of wisdom results in practical wisdom, praxis

 

Dasein and reason

17 Oct

Before entering into the concept of being-in-the-world, a provisional translation of Dasein, it is necessary to understand the extent to which ontology distances itself from Cartesian rationalism, at which point it approaches, for those who desire a deeper dive “Cartesian Meditations” (post) since Husserl was Heidegger’s teacher and he kept some concepts.

The two well-known Cartesian categories for something are res extensia and res cogitans, about which Heidegger wrote: “Doubtless this [with regard to God] needs production and preservation, but within the created entities [or only considering these ] … there is something that needs no other entity, in regard to the production and conservation of creatures, for example of man.

These substances are two: the res cogitans and the res extensa “(Heidegger, 2015, p.144). Thus the Cartesian dualism is not only between two finite substances, which are naturally distinct, but between the two finites and the infinite, and Heidegger clarifies immediately after returning to the medieval ontology, sometimes called fundamental or ontotheology by other authors, the question (Heidegger, 2015, 145), that is, “in the affirmations God is or the world is, we preach the being … the word ‘is’ can not indicate the being each time referred to in the same sense (αυυωυúς, unívoce), since between both there is an infinite difference of bein.

If the meaning of ‘is’ was univocal, then the servant would have the same sense of not created or the uncreated would be demoted to a servant “(idem). It solves the quarrel of the universal, between realists and nominalists, “Being does not perform the function of a simple name [the nominalists thought], since in both cases it is understood to be” (ibid.).

Explicit and surpasses scholasticism ” positive sense of the signification of the s’ as an ‘analogical’ meaning to distinguish it from univocal or merely synonymous signification “(ibid.).

The quotes are of Heidegger’s own to indicate the analogy of being as substance, and extending to contemporaneity neither the analog nor digital are to be, belong only to the ontic, or in our designation to the artifacts.

Finally, it underscores the Cartesian ontology that “falls far short of scholasticism” which left the sense of being and the character of the “universality” of that meaning contained in the idea of ​​substantiality “(ibid.), While acknowledging that even medieval ontology questioned very little this sense.

Although Descartes is able to recover in some respects, he notes for his time and is worth even today, we have not even freed ourselves from the crisis of European thought of the last century, “the Cartesian ontology of the world is still today in force in its fundamental principles”, materiality.

Heidegger, M. Ser e Tempo (Being and time), 10a. Brazilian edition, Trad. Revised by Marcia Sá Cavalcante, Bragança Paulista, SP: Editora Universitária São Francisco, 2015.

 

Deceleration and the technique

18 Jul

After convincingly criticizing Baudrillard and categorically asserting that “mere speed does not suppose great influence on the production of historical sense” (page. 36), goes back to the easy critique of technology.

What counts above all is the instability of the trajectory, the disappearance of one’s own gravitation, irritationen or temporal oscillations. “(Page 36), Byung-Chul Han yields to Baudrillard’s temptation that modern technology is responsible for this Well, but what is the origin of this?

Baudrillard’s Culture and Simulation book is from the 1970s, the internet was born with academic users, and Freud’s civilization was in the 1930s, not to mention Nietzsche who passed away at the beginning of the last century, more precisely on August 25, 1900.

Therefore, it is necessary to return to Han’s earlier arguments which are more solid, “acceleration is not the only plausible explanation of the disappearance of meaning” (page 35), and the expression “atoms of meaning” also leads to an error, because the sense is not nuclear “(idem), takes a small step in the right direction:” rest is not caused by the acceleration and the movement of exchanges, but by the no-if-know-to-where “(page 38) , a lack of goals.

He will also criticize Bauman, for whom modern man is a pilgrim in the desert, who practices a “life on the way” (page 43), and at a glance returns to the meaning affirming “secularization does not entail a demarcation (Demarratovosoerimg)”, but goes back and says that modernity continues to be a narrative, but the printed culture and reproduction does not have the mythical and eschatological character of oral culture, is another narrative, the romantic, Gadamer has already clarified.

The criticism of technique and technical progress is the common temptation, to point out it as religious is at least contradictory since it is the legitimate heir of the lights and reason, it is not history as a history of salvation, but as romantic historical determinism the fashion of Dilthey.

The immersion in digital culture, or in cyberculture, did not deterritorialize (radio, TV and the cinema did it before) nor secularized, those who made it were the lights and financial capital that recognizes neither country nor place, the narrative that omits the process of production of videos, images, photographs and also digital code all over the planet is not only a technical or technological inversion, it is a cultural inversion, thanks to them cultures and people have been reborn.

It is not necessary to walk the world, because the world walks by you, and this is what stimulates young people to know other countries and places, rooted country that is anti-evolutionary and conservative, man walked the world before fixing borders, who fixed the empires, which now erect walls and speeches radical patriarchs, the world is already a global village, what there is now is a nostalgic feeling of a world that never returns

 

The scent and significance

17 Jul

Like art, scent requires appreciation and sensitivity, but this is longer than meaning,  this tells us Byung-Chul Han: “the world is full of meaning. The gods are only meaningful. ” (Han, 2016, 25). It penetrates into the true meaning of the narrative, of the primitive and contemporary oral: “narrative creates the world from nothing” (p.25), but it is not bound by the image: “the world can read itself as an image” (idem).
Without mentioning them, Han seems to penetrate the rock art, when he unveils the relation: “here all that has meaning is the eternal repetition of the same, the reproduction of the already been, the imperishable truth.
This is how prehistoric man lives in a present that endures. “(HAN, 2016, 26) Han’s cosmogony penetrates the eschatological: “it distinguishes in any way from historical time that promises progress … the eskáton indicates the end of time … the eschatological time admits no action, no project” (HAN, 2016, 27).
It also reveals the deeper meaning of the post-truth, “time will be defactised and at the same time denatured (entnaturalisier)” (page 28), by pointing to it already in the Enlightenment: “the revolution refers to a defaced time.
Free from all being/to be launched, from any natural or theological force, the world, like a steamy colossus, looses itself towards the future, where it hopes to find salvation “(page 29). Citation Robespierre speaking at the constitutional ceremony of 1793: “The progrès de la raison humaine ont préparé cette grande révolution, et c’est à vous que’est spécialement imposé le décision le l’accélérer” (quoted on page 29).
Was the triumph of reason, also comments on the same experience in “The Death of Danton” written by Büchner, when quoting Camille: “The common fixed ideas which pass for being common sense are unbearably boring” (cit. Byung-Chul separates oral time from history by understanding “the mythical which functions as an image,” and sees the history of the Gutenberg galaxy as one that “gives way to information” (p. 30), to give these a definition unpublished: “in reality, the information presents another paradigma”.
“Within it, inhabits another very different temporality. It is a manifestation of atomized time, of a time of points (Punkt-Zeit) “(page 31). I return to the previous page to understand its concept of aroma: “History illuminates … imposes a linear narrative trajectory … has no aroma” (HAN, 2016, 30).

Contrary to Baudrillard’s thesis, “information is not related to history as the always perfect simulation of the original or the origin” (page 31), it will say for this is a new paradigm.
He will say at the end of this chapter that time “rushes, fills itself to balance a lack of the essential Being,” causing “the lack of Being to become even more pervasive” (32).

HAN, B.C. The Scent of Time: A Philosophical Essay on the Art of Lingering – Wiley, 2017. (notes and pages in portuguese edition).

 

Why do we need to think?

09 Jul

I dreamed of writing a philosophy book, I will not write it any more, I may make considerations, such as I shall do here, but upon unexpectedly finding the author Thomas Nagel in: “What does all this mean? An Introduction to Philosophy “in his 5th. edition in portuguese, original en english in 1987 (Oxford University Press) I think he did the trivial: to present fundamental questions in everyday words.

So I’ll just make comments, it’s not a summary, it’s just notes, and maybe it’s interesting to say how I found it, it was even from another work: What’s it like to be a bat? (The Philosophical Review LXXXIII, pp. 435-50, 1974), where it says that this question may make sense, but it does not make sense to ask what it is like to be a toaster, updating to this day what it feels like to be Robot Sophia, people asking this question.

It is not this question that answers directly, but current issues that are in everyday thinking, namely: How we know what it is, what other minds are, the meaning of words, freedom (free will), death and the sense of life.

Philosophy does not seem to deal with this, but only in dialogue with other thinkers, the author explains at the beginning of the book: “Philosophy is different from science and mathematics … it is not based on experimentation or observation, but only on thought . “(p.8).

We all think, it is wrong to think that only philosophers and scientists think, the question of philosophy is; “To question and to understand very common ideas that we use every day without thinking about them” (p.8), and in doing this we are taken “in the wave” wherever it wants to take us, in times of crisis and deep changes this can be fatal .

The author explains, among other things, two questions that I consider essential: “A physicist will ask what atoms are made of or what explains gravity, but a philosopher will ask how we can know that there is anything outside our minds” (p. 9).

This is essential because this is the contemporary idealist question, and idealism is the great philosophy of our time, it is the basis of what is conventionally called modernity.

Nagel, Thomas. What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987.

 

Simplicity and Wisdom

06 Jul

To simplify is not to reduce concepts or things that are naturally profound, among them, love, wisdom and knowledge itself are difficult to be treated in a simple way, and should not be seen with simplicity and little wisdom, but it is possible with life and with very concrete examples of everyday life to show and demonstrate what is human knowing.

But in times of post-truth and book access to the production and diffusion of knowledge, the mistakes of simplism and shallow culture can have devastating effects, which does not mean confusing and unnecessarily complexing what is explained or demonstrated.

Just as the reduced knowledge of a given subject or object of study can and usually leads to reductionism, a term used in scientific terms to say that the reduction of complexity did not explain the phenomenon it was proposed to study, is one of the major causes of cultural impoverishment contemporary, to which the Web is only a “medium” of diffusion.

Studies that lead to a better structuring of knowledge such as Ontologies, Semantic Web and now a new dawn of artificial intelligence, undoubtedly lead to further progress in human thought and scientific knowledge.

It is necessary, it is emphasized to not complicate beyond what is necessary and also not to reduce beyond the possible so that the essence of a phenomenon or object of study is not lost when studying it.

In social terms, it is generally imposed by authority much more by the form than indeed by content, the pomp that has certain knowledge does not necessarily mean the wisdom or depth of knowledge, often change the form by the content.

Thus, if some deity or supreme wisdom were among us, it would scarcely be recognized, as in Christian culture, the biblical passage from Mark 6: 3 reflects: “This man is not the carpenter, son of Mary, brother of James, of Joseph, of Judas and of Simon? Your sisters do not live here with us? “And they were scandalized by him.” Do not be scandalized by simplicity, but precisely by the absence of it among those who arrogate knowledge and wisdom”.

 

Unity, complexity and simplicity

04 Jul

Apparently irreconcilable, some say that the paradigm of the contemporary world, complexity is opposed to simplicity, but let us analyze this interpretation of Edgar Morin’s thinking much better by saying “… part of the phenomena, at the same time, complementary, competing and antagonistic , respects the diverse coherences that unite in dialogical and polylogical and, with this, faces the contradiction by several routes.

Thus, it uses the basic concept of a complex self-organized system “(Morin, 2000, p. 387), which refers to the idea of ​​unity as a key notion. This complexity necessitates new strategies and coherent modes of dialogue to penetrate the mysteries, notes Morin: “(…) necessity, in their coherence and their antagonism, nations of order, disorder and organization obliges us to respect complexity physical, biological, human “(Morin 2000, pp. 180-181).

Understanding the complexity of the culture that involves it: juvenilization, cerebralization, Culturalization, which is explained in one of his basic books The lost paradigm and human nature, whose Portuguese edition is 1973.

Although there are other ideas of complexity, Morin says that the word complexity: “pushes us to explore everything and complex thinking is the thought that, armed with principles of order, laws, algorithms, certainties, clear ideas, patrol in the fog the uncertain , the confused, the Unspeakable “(MORIN, 2000, pp. 180-181).

The idea that complexity can not coexist with simplicity is the incomprehension not only of the dialogic, but of the polylogical one that consolidates and unites the two concepts: “to distinguish and make communicate, instead of isolating and disjoining, to recognize the singular traits, original, historical facts of the phenomenon rather than linking them purely and simply to determinations or general laws, to conceiving of multiplicity-unity … “(MORIN, 2000, p.354).

This alternative of unity in diversity is explained by the author using examples in the biological field, which is in practice the exercise of simplicity, where the diversity of nature composes life.

MORIN, E. Ciência com consciência (Science with conscience). Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand, 2000

 

History of the algorithm

07 May

The idea that we can solve problems by proposing a finite number of interactions between several tasks (or commands as they are called in computing languages) for several problems originates in Arithmetic.

Although the machine of Charles Babbage (1791-1871) and George Boole’s (1815-1864) Algebra make a huge contribution to modern computers, most logicians and historians of the birth of the digital world agree that the problem of fact was raised by David Hilbert’s second problem (1962-1943) at a 1900 conference in Paris.

Among 23 problems for mathematics to solve, some recently solved such as Goldbach’s Conjecture (see our post), and others to solve, the second problem was to prove that arithmetic is consistent, free from any internal contradiction.  

In the 1930s, two mathematical logicians, Kurt Gödel (1906-75) and Gerhard Gentzen (1909-1945) proved two results that called new attention to the problem proposed, both referring to Hilbert, so in fact, there is the origin of the question, roughly, if an enumerable problem is solved by a finite set of steps.

In fact, Gentzen’s solution was a proof of the consistency of Peano’s axioms, published in 1936, showing that the proof of consistency can be obtained in a system weaker than the Zermelo-Fraenkel theory, used axioms of primitive recursive arithmetic , and is therefore not general proof.

The proof of the inconsistency of arithmetic, called Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, is more complete and shows that some proof of the consistency of Peano’s axioms can be developed without this arithmetic itself.

This theorem states: if the only acceptable proof procedures are those that can be formalized within arithmetic, then Hilbert’s problem can not be solved, in other more direct form, if the system is complete or consistent.

There are polemics raised about these results, such as Kreisel (1976) who argued that the proofs were syntactic for semantic problems, Detlefsen (1990) who says that the theorem does not prohibit the existence of a proof of consistency, and Dawson (2006) that the proof of consistency is erroneous using the evidence given by Gentzen and Gödel himself in 1958 work.

The controversies aside, Kurt Gödel’s participation in the important Vienna circle in the 1920´s before the war exploded, and the subsequent discussions of his theorem by Alain Turing (1912-1954) and Claude Shannon (1916-2001) underline its importance for the history of algorithms and modern digital computer.

 

Desconstruction is not destruction

28 Feb

aDesconstruction-Freedmens_Bureau_1866While the lay public thinks of the so-called postmodern malaise; or the non-being of postmodernity, since it only declares non-existences, absences and impossibilities, it is ultimately the recognition that is already in postmodernity, that something must be overcome.

But this new type of nihilism, the misleading and sometimes superficial understanding of deconstruction is not destruction, let alone “the end of history,” since it is always affirming, as in our previous posts, within Anglo-Saxon thought the the connection of deconstruction with literature and the way of reflecting Munslow’s historiographical work.

On the writing of history does not mean that it can not be performed to inform us the reading of Balzac helps to understand revolutionary France and antimonarchic thinking, as well as on the past and the mythical cultures that preceded current ones, part of the structuralist thought helped to understand better what followed the thought of modernity,.

So even in Anglo-Saxon thought deconstruction is a way of reflecting on historiographical work, on the process of transforming evidence and information from history into history, but it is now inevitable the historical questioning, the current work of historians to understand and explain the past through evidence facts, will help build the future.

If there is a clear demand for change, there is a clear need for a change of mentality and thinking about the very way of looking at history, of rereading literature, and especially of pointing out new solid paths to change, understanding deconstruction as destroying culture and favoring the general disinformation is part of the barbarism and not the seed of the ongoing change.

 

Being in spheres and self-being

06 Feb
Undoubtedly the greatest evil of ours, together with economic and socialasBolhas exclusion, is the exclusion by specific human characteristics: diseases, physical type and even intellectual.
We have already emphasized in our posts the importance of the triad of spheres of Petr Sloterdijk: Spheres, in which he describes various aspects of an isolated society in “bubbles” (name of the first book Spheres I, already translated into Portuguese) (Estação Liberdade, 2016)
It is a place, the sphere, where it can be protected, it is not a place of comfort but of security, which in the treatment given by Sloterdijk is the tradition of thought, which appears as a place of protection of a humanity that, for protect, get stuck with stones, weapons, songs and ideas, and would not be expected differently to the cyber world.
In Sloterdijk’s concept, which is different from that treated as “identity” because the spheres have identity that are fleeting, does it address the human problem where we are when we are in the world? That is why it is a consequence of Heidegger’s thought of “being-in-the-world.”
Today’s society has dissolved its protective relations of intimacy into formal gray relations, the question becomes transfigured: where are we when we are in the unusually large, the lack of shelter of absolute exteriority, so it is a bigger problem than Domenico de Masi approach, it is not only the loss of sociological projects, but a human rupture.
It is not only the malaise of modernity, of a purely psychological nature, such as that treated by Freud, Sloterdijk’s sense of the “bubble” is what one thinks by “spirit” or “soul” is only the “air” of life in a shared space
This is clearly already thinking of the inner space, beginning of his book, when Sloterdijk demonstrates the pendency of his microspherology with respect to contemporary psychology, what philosophy calls itself (Hegel uses this category to differentiate the in-itself) from if and to allow one to think of the surrealism of human spatiality, namely, to be content and continent, so when one speaks of the production of content one should speak of the continente in digital world.
The religious belief in the mystical fusion and the physiological enchantment of the cases described by Sloterdijk, who speaks of the heart and soul of figures like Catherine of Siena and Raimundo de Cápua, who speaks of the exchange of one’s own heart with that of Christ, revealed the relational character of human bodies and that even finds in Plato’s Banquet and that were annulled by “anatomical individualism”, according to the author, when the dissection of corpses begins in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Despite a language ranging from poetic to biting (in certain sense), Sloterdijk’s critique of our time to be fundamental, which could be roughly said to be “in-spheres.”