Arquivo para a ‘Cognition’ Categoria

Idealism and the wide door of misconceptions

16 Feb

At the same time discovered as quantum physics, holography, and a new worldview of the universe emerge, there are those who believe that the earth is flat and that we were never the moon. These are too many specific problems to be dealt with, but philosophy in general contemporary rather than neoliberal, this is its pragmatic economic aspect.
It is idealistic and even philosopher-youtubers who discourse on philosophy follow it. Kant is complex, but his central point is the dichotomy between subject and object, as they cannot be separated, at least in terms of theory of knowledge, he created the analytical and synthetic judgments. Who is cured the disease or sick, for Kant it is the disease.

The analytic judgment is that the predicate is within the subject, and so it specifies its logic, and this logic comes from a physical-mathematical view of knowledge in modernity. It exemplifies using geometric figures such as the triangle and the square, of course it has four sides, but this is not a deduction but a tautological, circular definitions.
The synthetic judgment, on the other hand, cannot be contained in the subject, so it adds reasoning as something completely new, that is, the novelty is the predicate.
It is very simplified, but essentially develops a logic where Being and Entity are confusing and dismantles the possibility of an ontology, even if it is partial, and imagined with this throwing away all the “superstitions”, the famous “Sapere audi”, dare to know.
As reason alone was not enough, it was necessary to introduce the idea of empiricism, which came from David Hume’s arguments (1711-1776, so judgments may a priori, which already exist in the subject, and a posteriori, experimentally acquired.
Schlick (1882-1936), who founded the Vienna Circle neologicist school, criticized the idealistic basis of a priori knowledge, claiming that since statements have a logical truth, they are neither analytical nor synthetic as they are. Kant argued because it was paradoxical; and that if the truth depends on the factual content, the statements are therefore a posteriori and not a priori, since the facts must happen, Schlick was assassinated by Nazism.
In the circle of Vienna were present Kurt Godel, Karl Popper, Hans Kelsen and others.
The same proposition can be known by cognitive agents both a priori and a posteriori, using the same example as Kant, a creation only knows that the square has four sides after learning to count, while for an adult it seems “inductive.”
The video is a short discussion about idealism of Kant to Hegel:


It’s time to change of way

11 Feb

It is not my proposal, but the name of the last book by Edgar Morin (Editor Bertrand do Brasil, 2020), the almost centenary French philosopher shows the lessons of the coronavirus that we resisted in learning, it is also very similar to the name of Peter Sloterdijk’s book : You have to change your life (publisher Relógio d´Água, 2018) this well before the coronavirus.

Before moving on to some of Morin’s lessons, I want to say that we ALL need to change our lives, the planet has run out, words have run out, polarizing politics runs out, and unfortunately sweet words like “fraternity”, “solidarity”, “compassion” ”And so many others seem to be only the will of some that others change, without, however, that each one changes himself first.

The preamble is a historical retrospective from the Spanish flu to May 68 and the current ecological crisis, the lessons from the coronavirus in chapter 1 I comment on at the end.

I begin at the end to affirm that Morin, who also shares values ​​of fraternity, of planetary citizenship, of overcoming inequalities, etc., has in his book a very clear proposal, after demonstrating that the crisis is prior to the coronavirus that only worsened it , on page 4 sentence “… there are two inseparable requirements for political renewal: to leave neoliberalism, to reform the state” (page 46), which will provide the means in chapter 3.

This is actually your second point in the cap. 2 Post-corona challenges, the challenge of the political crisis, of the nine challenges it points to in current crises: the existential challenge, also pointed out in Pope Francis’ Fratelli Tutti Encyclical, the challenges of crises: globalization, democracy, digital, ecological protection, the economic crisis, uncertainties and the danger of a major setback (pages 44 to 53).

The 15 lessons from the coronavirus: about our existence, isolation shows us how those who “did not have access to the superfluous and the frivolous and deserve to reach the stage where we have the superfluous” live (page 23), on the condition recalls the Meadows report, which pointed to the limits of growth, the lesson about the uncertainty of our life, the lesson of our relationship with death, the lesson about our civilization (life turned outward, without inner life, the life of shopping malls and happy hours), the awakening of solidarity, inequality and social isolation, the diversity of situations and the management of the epidemic, the nature of a crisis, the 9 initial lessons.

The lesson about science and medicine, do we understand “that science is not a repertoire of absolute truths (unlike religion” (page 33), the crisis of intelligence, which he wisely divides into “invisible complexities” the way of knowledge “of human realities (growth rate, GDP, opinion polls, etc.” (page 35), point 2. is the ecology of action, it warns that action can “go in the opposite direction to what is expected and return like a boomerang to the head of the one who decided it” (page 35), how many actions and speeches fell in this ditch.

The twelfth lesson is the inefficiency of the state, which, in addition to neoliberal politics, yields “to pressures and interests that paralyze all reforms” (page 38), while polarization deepens.

The thirteenth lesson is national relocation and dependence, and regrets “that the national problem is so poorly formulated and always reduced to the opposition between sovereignty and globalization” (page 39), note the speeches that polarize and do not leave this circle vicious.

The fourteenth lesson is the crisis in Europe, I remember Sloterdijk’s book “If Europe woke up”, and Morin opens the wound: “on the shock of the epidemic, the European Union broke into national fragments” (page 40) .

The fifteenth lesson is the planet in crisis, quotes Prof. Thomas Michiels, biologist and specialists in virus transmission: “There is no doubt that globalization influences epidemics and favors the spread of the virus. When observing the evolution of past epidemics, there are notable examples in which it is noted that epidemics follow railways and human displacements. There is no doubt, the circulation of individuals aggravates the epidemic ”(page 41).

MORIN, E. (2020) É hora de mudarmos de via: lições do coronavírus, transl. Ivone Castilho Benedetti, collaboration Sabah Abouessalam. Rio de Janeiro, BR: Bertrand do Brasil.



Existence, repetition and Being

09 Feb

In philosophy you can have form (morphé) and matter (hilé) and all beings have morphé-form and hilé-matter, but in-formation depends on thinking, it depends on the availability to the act of thinking and not just the repetition, here we find this second topic, that repeating does not just mean becoming redundant, the civilizing problem remains if we do not move forward.

In a lecture in 2016, at the UFRGS Hall of Acts (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil) Sloterdijk already sentenced: “I think the reality today is similar to how we were in 1915 – he commented, comparing the current panorama with a time in the last century when the First World War had just started and had not happened… ”, this situation only worsened, the pandemic could be a pause, but it was not..

Access to human existence in a new kind of record implies an articulation of meaning for Being and life, the path taken from Husserl to Heidegger, and then with Gadamer is what links hermeneutics to ontology, and in Gadamer the text is explicit. hermeneutic circle method.

It can be thus described by following Gadamer’s reasoning: it must not be degraded to a vicious circle, even if it is tolerated, in it it holds a positive possibility of originating knowledge, which, of course, will only be properly understood when interpretation understands its task first.

This constant first and last task remains that of not receiving beforehand, through a “happy idea” or through popular concepts, neither the previous position nor the previous vision, but in securing the scientific theme in the elaboration of these concepts. from the same thing. (GADAMER, 1998, p. 401).

Considering the method we return to the essential question of Being, which is the forgetting in Western philosophy of this concept from Plato to Nietzsche, and thus we have a metaphysics or its negation, both incompletely because such an essential concept has not been addressed.

It is the forgetting of being, which the philosopher diagnoses throughout the Western philosophical tradition, beginning with Plato and extending to Nietzsche. In his work “What is metaphysical” (written in 1929), Heidegger defines existence as follows: “The word existence means a way of being and, undoubtedly, of the being of that being that is open to the opening of being, in which lies while sustaining it.” (HEIDEGGER,1989, p.59).

Without this essential category discussion and thought are tied to the “being,” which Thomas Aquinas defines it thus: “From which it follows that the essence, by which a thing is called the ‘being,’ is not only form, nor only matter, but both, although in its own way only form is the cause of this being ”(Aquino, 2008, pp 10), in this ontological line there is no separation between Ent and Being, even in English the words can be the same (Being).

Thus we have beyond Being, its aggregate category of being, which is inseparable from it essential concept.

AQUINO, T. O Ente e a Essência, Universidade da Beira Interior. LusoSofia.Press, Covilhã, PT, 2008.

HEIDEGGER, Martin. Que é metafísica? In: HEIDEGGER, Martin. Conferências e escritos filosóficos. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1989.

GADAMER, H.G. Verdade e Método: Traços fundamentais de uma hermenêutica filosófica. Tradução de Flávio Paulo Meurer. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1998.



Euphoria and Serenity

20 Jan

The opposite of serenity is not irritation or anger, this is the opposite of calmness, the opposite is euphory, we have already posted the relationship between serenity and Phronesis, a Greek word that could be translated as practical wisdom, central in Hans Georg Gadamer’s book, and which in our view is approaches serenity.

There are those who believe in euphoria after covid.

This is because we live in times of impulsive reactions to the questions posed, in which after euphoria comes depression and discouragement, which at heart are always lacking in phronesis, though many draw attention to action, to practice, but detached from wisdom.

In Truth and Method II (second volume), prevailing statements about the dialogical structure of language thought to guide the world (and our worldview) and the clearer relationship between thought and language.

His clarification of the historical question was Gadamer who overcame Dilthey’s and others’ discussion of romantic historicity, his philosophical hermeneutics deepening as a hermeneutic of listening, listening and listening, the true view of the Other.

Gadamer in the second volume gives structure to a phrase by the Russian writer Leon Tolstoy: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” if truth is hard to tell, when practiced in wisdom Phronesis it opens a “clearing”, the Listening to each other.

Does the universe “hear” us, do plants and animals “hear” us, we need to understand their language and in this sense language is not anything just talking, it is listening.

In the video below Gadamer portrays the history of philosophy, but with phronesis and truth:



Joy and dialogue

05 Jan

It is practically impossible to think of opposite poles, but in hermeneutic dialogue it is possible to put preconceptions aside to fuse horizons.
They are opposite poles that produce energy, for example, they are opposing forces that maintain equilibrium, the imbalance is precisely one force breaking the other as is the case of atomic fission, which produces a bomb, but still dominated is an energy.

Respect for the Other, in times of a pandemic, means observing the distance, wearing masks and showing solidarity with those who suffer the effects of the pandemic, also in the social question.

The importance of principles, or spirituality or even the divine among us, is necessary for this to be done without the possibility of rupture being the only alternative, and sometimes it is.
The joy we experience when we open ourselves to others, giving up even our own preconceptions (we all have concepts about life, the truth, etc.) is inconceivable, but always real.
The problem raised by the philosophy of the Other, which is not the same, is the first principle for authentic dialogue, in times of global citizenship it will be more than necessary, it will be the only rich source for dialogue and harmony between peoples and cultures.
The non-acceptance of the Other, whether culturally, socially or ethnically is the reason for current conflicts, beyond acts done without any ethics, but that Spinozian ethic that each has its purpose. Joy is possible even in dark times,


Hatred, disdain and reflection

07 Sep

It is not by chance that the brain region of structures such as the medial frontal cortex, whose capacity to argue and therefore to dialogue is there, has as its core the putamen, the pre-motor cortex and the insular cortex, whose structures also participate in the perception of disdain and disgust, that is, the activation of hatred is physically in the brain close to those associated with judgment and reasoning, so you can both activate one as the other, there are both options.

Those who want to justify hate are full of arguments, are capable of even deep reasoning to act against the hated, but if the premise is dialogue, the same reasoning can be used to understand, care for and divert the violence of the other, as some martial arts teach, bypassing the “body”.

Hate will not disappear in the hope that external circumstances change, in general it does not happen, it is not a magic, to cure it, it is necessary to recognize diversity, its problems, as Gadamer would have to be aware of preconceptions, that is, of the fundamentals that start a disagreement or a type of credit, to recognize the Other in its bubble and to recognize ours, both as having preconceptions.

If we actually activate the reasoning, thinking part and put the disagreements on this level, we mitigate the hate part a little, but it is essential to ask and a part of our hatred would come down to reflecting in this way: “Why do I hate? What do I intend to achieve with this? What do I gain and lose from my hatred? ”.

I do not know of a situation that has been resolved in this case, in general it has led to a greater conflict, to a greater mutual hatred, if the objective is war we will probably get there, but I believe that for most people it is not, so what remains is to reflect , analyze the origins of such “evil” in its deepest bases.

Hate must be combated with the understanding and mainly that it leads to a new type of action, which implies to recognize in the first place that it exists and it is fostering on two sides and not by only one, in the manifestations of people and in their advertisements, denunciations are recurrent to say the whole truth is on this side and on the other just a lie, it is necessary to explain the consequences and that in fact those who benefit are those whose reason for existing and thinking is really “hatred”.

Wise people of various shades such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa of Calcutta with wisdom and intelligence in the face of enormous and absurd conflicts have been able to show that kindness and generosity, creativity and respect for others can lead to seeking a larger collective good and although a little longer will have more lasting fruits, with less violence and deaths, but because even in serious groups hatred persists, the answer is very simple. Encouraged by leaders and groups that live in political, ideological or religious bubbles, the main resource is the demonization of the adversary, identified with some disgusting aspect of evil: death, corruption, sexual, racial or gender violence, weakening of values ​​or something of the like.

And once united in a group the fear disappears and this reduces the inhibition of those who hate to act in other ways not that of argumentation and exposure of facts, but violence against violence.

The leaders who incite this hatred, say they can no longer control it, but deep down they wanted it, develop this part of the reasoning that we say at the beginning near the part of the brain of the putamen, and released the hatred will be executed by the people who use the other part with less reasoning and more visceral, so the hate “explodes”.

What we should think about in face of unworthy facts, and at this moment there should be none greater than the pandemic, is that the feeling of fear and exhaustion by confinement is exploited not in achieving ways of relaxation and anti-stress, but in releasing it in violent ways, what are the consequences? and who are they favoring?

I think of the hateful ones, and not the loving ones who in fact have love for humanity and the most fragile appreciation. It seems like a path of no return, in the midst of a pandemic and with two tense elections approaching, the United States national and municipal elections in Brazil, I see little or no discussion about the pandemic and about those who die every day, bereaved families and compassion for them, neither on one side nor on the other. Fortunately, mortality levels have decreased, but the long weekend promises crowds, the village of cars to the beach was huge, and the pandemic?



In the pleasure of the text there is a dialogue

02 Sep

In the previous post there are Barthes’ expressions on literature, writing and text, and we have already conceptualized the idea of ​​inscription which is supposed to be supported, writing and the cognitive aspect and in the text the linguistic, artistic and “installation” aspect, and it is this is where his book “The pleasure of the text” is analyzed.

The book despite theoretical aspects is in fact a pleasure to be read, there is dialogue and mainly pleasant surprises, such as, for example, a semiological space, a kind of place between two margins: “an obedient margin, according to, plagiarism (…) the canonical state of the tongue and another movable, empty (…) these two margins wax, are necessary ”(page 40).

It yields more classic literature: “by Zola, by Balzac, by Dickens, by Tolstoy) it carries with it a kind of weakened mimesis: we do not read everything with the same intensity of reading; a rhythm is established, leisurely, with little respect for the integrity of the text ”(page 17)

Proust, Balzac and Tostói deals in a single line of ruptures, “the very rhythm of what is read and what is not read that produces the pleasure of great stories: Proust, Balzac, Guerra e Paz will sometimes have been read , word by word? (Proust’s happiness: from one reading to the next, we never skip the same passages) ”(page 18).

He recommends how to do the real reading: “Read slowly, read everything, from a Zola novel, the book will fall from your hands; read quickly, in fragments, a modern text, that text becomes opaque, timely for our pleasure: you want something to happen, and nothing happens; because what happens to language doesn’t happen to speech: what “happens” *, what “goes away”, the gap in both margins .. “(page 19).

Contrast the text with the theater or the cinema: “In the text scene there is no limelight: there is no one active behind the text (the writer) nor before anyone passive (the reader); there is no subject and object. The text prescribes grammatical attitudes: it is the undifferentiated eye that an excessive author (Angelus Silesius) speaks: ‘The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which he sees me.” (pag.52).

It reveals the secret of another book of his: “Old, very old tradition: hedonism has been repelled by almost all philosophies; only the hedonistic claim is found among the outcasts, Sade, Fourier; for Nietzsche himself, hedonism is pessimism ”(page 74), the book quoted in the previous post that goes far beyond hedonism.

BARTHES, Roland. (1987) O prazer do texto. Trad.   J. Guinsburg. Brazil, SP: Editora Perspectiva.  (portuguese edition in pdf, in english edition pdf)






Authors and dialogues

01 Sep

I read a 1968´s text by Roland Barthes “The death of the author” in which he problematizes the concept, proposing it as “the destruction of all voice, of all origin”, he would also say about man today in a troubled moment of concept and events truly and “strangers” who are building “barricades in the texts”, what he said of his contemporaries (Alain Badiou and Jacques Derridá stated that without this concept no object is critically thought), and what he would say today, certainly his thesis I was right, and more so today.

It is known that Foucault gave pins to Barthes, but in Sade, Fourier, Loyola they were returned by inserting the reader in the discursive game and reformulating the question of authorship in another dimension: the body, this object of consumption of so many theories today, only in Barthes it finds some solidity (not liquid).

For Barthes the text is a body, an object of pleasure endowed with the ability to penetrate the reader’s life in fragments, generating coexistences between reader and author, or verbatim: “The pleasure of the text also includes a friendly return from the author.

The returning author is certainly not the one identified by our institutions (history and teaching of literature, philosophy, Church discourse); not even the hero of a biography he is… it is a simple plural of ‘charms’, the place of some tenuous details, the source, however, of vivid romances, a discontinuous song of kindness, in which we read death with all much more certainty than in the epic of a destination; it is not a person (civil, moral), it is a body. ” (BARTHES, 2005).

Barthes proposed in 1977 (Leçon) a distinction of the terms: literature, writing and text, which is particularly interesting conceptually, writing has something that is the manuscript an inscription in which a support, an utensil is supposed, in second place (although it is only of a didactic character) the cognitive sense, by which the installation is designated and the third the “linguistic” forms endowed with meaning that take on an artistic sense.

To problematize the question of “pluridimensionality” proposed by Barthes for literature, he initiates the so-called “genetic criticism”, problematizing the enunciative aspect of the term, aims to reconstruct a history of the text in its nascent state, seeking to find in it the secrets of fabrication of work, and thus it is explained what a text is and its relation to literature.

It is here that dialogue is established through language, without understanding the genetics of a text, there may be solicitude or dialogue, but it would not leave superficiality nor reach that level desirable for many contemporary authors to assume the preconceptions and establish new horizons. .

Barthes makes a valuable reflection on listening, distinguishing it from the physiological act of the mechanic of “listening”, giving it a statute of psychological act that can only be defined by its object and intention, a category so dear to hermeneutics although it is not exactly the same, has similarities.

The author makes a valuable reflection about listening, distinguishing it from the physiological and mechanical act of “listening”, giving it a status of psychological act that is defined only by its object and intention.

Barthes’ phrase is famous: “Any refusal of a language is a death” and an interpreter of this author explains the difference between hearing and listening: “[…] a poetic listening (‘brute’, as Barthes wants) aims not to imprison sounds in a hierarchical way, as in an insipid object of cold analysis ”(El Haouli, 2002), it is this aspect of hierarchical dialogues that dominate many who think they do it but do not do it, just want the passive submission of the Other to the their categories.

BARTHES, R. Sade, Fourier, Loyola, Paris: Seuil, 1971. [tradução: Sade, Fourier, Loyola. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2005.

EL HAOULI, Janete. Demetrio Stratos: em busca da voz-música. Londrina: Gráfica e Editora Midiograf, 2002.





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.




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.