RSS
 

The unspiritualized asceticism

23 Sep

Not a phrase of any theologian, not even of a religious person, is the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, who besides being one of the most read and controversial of our time, had and has had enormous influence on Byung Chull Han, author well known for many works, but perhaps his main work is “The Society of Tiredness,” Sloterdijk coined “despiritualized asceticism.
It is in his book “You can change your life” not yet published in Portuguese, besides a well done sentence, after all he also works immunology, a life of exercises, which is one of the characteristics of modern man, I do not have a spiritual exercise If you do it systematically and consciously, you indulge in “exercises” to find immunology.
I also found, I was actually expecting this because it is a consequence of his thinking, a worldview, in an interview and not in books, I read his sentence: “Ancient philosophy did not place the accent on the rationality of the world, but on the need to conduct a life regulated according to cosmic prescriptions of being: his concern was above all ethical “.
He hoped because his book “Critic of Cynic Reason” is blunt and even difficult.
He explains in this interview his main concept which is the anthropotechnique: “the beginning of my book, I spoke mainly of repetitions”.
The critical point in the history of civilization is, in my view, represented by the emergence of explicit exercises: the human being, as such, lives in repetition and gives form and content to his life through a more or less conscious ritualism, made up of exercises. repetitive”, so ritualism is part of human life, but spirituality is not.
Sloterdijk’s “spirituality” is not imbued with religiosity, since it is increasingly linked to financial, political and even ideological appeals, the true form of change that the world, and man himself needs, is one capable of revalue life, the Being itself and depends on an inner action.
Says Sloterdijk in the interview, contrary to the categorical imperative upon which the current idealistic asceses move: “The imperative that I propose is, on the contrary, a transforming imperative: human beings sensitive to their appeal should start working on themselves”.
To live is to prepare oneself, to transform oneself, to access the status of the wise, to respond to the vertical tension that requires modifying one’s existence”.
The emptying of Being, a project of contemporary idealism is empty of spirituality, its appeals to ethics, go through the construction of power, what Foucault called biopower, and what Chull Han, Sloterdijk’s disciple says, has now moved to psycho-power, a form of “control” by an excess of bad information in the idealistic sense.

 

Worldview and paradigm shift

21 Sep

Dualism leads to an incorrect view of the separation of body and mind, theory and practice, and consequently matter and soul, although this remains for many in the “department” of religion, it happens to correspond exactly to a worldview, which separated subject from object.

This was the discourse of modernity, that of Heraclitus in pre-Socratic times, in the idea of ​​the fogist (fire substance) and that everything changes, but Aristotle’s “De anima” is the culmination of his natural theory, but a first study of the psyche, and this duality is not justifiable.

Popper was right to return to Parmenides’ primary idealism and say that this view of cosmology, not ontology, would last until 1900, but from Democritus’s atomism and that only with Maxwell’s entropy and now the new view of the quantum universe From the dark energies and masses another vision begins to spring, but the worldview is present and already behind.

Even the double track that plagued Popper, which in our view was only surpassed by the analysis of Thomas Kuhn’s “scientific revolutions,” but Popper’s point is beyond conceptualizing normal science, one that goes “by additions” and conjectures a In the form of change he will defend the idea that Parmenides was not an ontological, but a cosmologist.

And so, the limits of modern idealism are a misinterpretation of the Greek eidos, where thoughts give voice to the soul, or the mind, to those who deny this very metaphysical human essence.

The reason for the opposition to materialism of modernity is not due to idealistic separation, but to the false interpretation of eidos that would not give rise to the soul, but only to knowledge as experience and observation of the world, which from the pre-Socrates is already opposed to This view, which is naive, has neither an ontology nor a cosmology, Popper calls it the “Baconian myth.”

Thus modern materialism does not emerge as a current that merely gives dualism a dichotomy, a tension between subject and object, mind and body, nature and culture, as Bruno Latour proposed in “We were never modern,” the essence of materialist discourse is not. medieval realism, the ‘thing in itself’ of phenomenology, but the ‘unreachable goal’, empiricism as a support, and the scientific and cultural crisis of our time.

One of the most complicated texts for exegesis and biblical fundamentalism is the passage from the administrator who will be dismissed in the parable in Luke 16: 1-13, (moralists will call it dishonest only and fundamentalists smart problem), when in fact the problem is dualism. Knowing that he was about to be fired for squandering his boss’s money, the administrator begins to reflect Luke 16: 3-4: “You will take my administration away.

What am I going to do? To dig, I have no strength; to beg, I’m ashamed. Ah! I already know what to do so that someone will welcome me to your house when I get removed from the administration” and decides to give the boss’s debtors a discount. The boss praises him saying he was clever, and this confuses the biblists, but there is no confusion because this was the way the administrator was always clever, even at the time of resignation, he is consistent retains his posture, and although dismissed the boss praised the “dishonest administrator,” says the biblical text.

He was consistent, but right after it says: “You cannot serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other”, we must follow principles ALWAYS, be faithful in little to be faithful in enough, is the training that we make us who we are.

 

 

Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.

 

 

Idealism: back to the pre-Socratic

18 Sep

Karl Popper knew, the Vienna circle knew, and Husserl knew that to discuss the contemporary crisis it was necessary to return to idealism, the great foundation of contemporary Enlightenment, but Popper’s thesis goes deeper than we should return to the pre-Socrates.

Both Wittgenstein and Popper are known to have their connections with the Vienna Circle questioned, as a thought, but as an influence they certainly brought the questioning root of logical positivism in general, and of conventional Kantism in particular, a critique of idealism and enlightenment. resulting from it due to the detected crisis of science.

Both speak of a return to cosmology, although Popper claims “the Tractatus was a cosmological (albeit crude) treatise and because his theory of knowledge was closely linked to cosmology” (Popper, 2014, p. 2), rather than linguistic philosophy, as many of Wittgenstein’s readers suppose, clippings are always complicated.

He will explain that “specialization may be a temptation for the scientist… for the philosopher, it is a sin” (idem), but unfortunately it has happened, philosophy is now a “department” as if the other sciences did not do it implicitly (or explicitly by bad practices) his theories.

Ironic with the Baconian spirit, he was the first in modern science to appeal to empiricist “practice,” and Popper claims all science (I would say almost every thought except the refusal to think that it is more serious): “every science starts from the observation and then, slowly and cautiously, moves towards the theory ”(Popper, 2014, p. 3), the curious thing is that they use Popper himself to affirm this, poor reading, the mediocracy of“ illiteracy ”. secondary”.

His thesis is that rationality departed from Tales of Mileno and the Ionian school, and quotes it verbatim from the fragment [15]: “that the earth is sustained by water upon which it moves like a boat. If we say there is an earthquake, the earth is being shaken by the movement of the water ”(Popper, p. 4), amazed rationalism was born along with earth moving.

Compatible with the Baconian myth, Popper states in the following passage: “The purpose of the Baconian myth is to explain why scientific statements are true, indicating that observation is the“ true origin ”of our scientific knowledge” (idem), of course, he questions. This and its purpose is to unveil the idealistic building from antiquity.

Who is going to question Tales’s idea is Anaximander in suggesting the earth as a drum, but supported by nothing, in Popper’s quote from the fragment [A 11]: “… it is supported by nothing, but remains stationary because it is equally distant of all other things.

Its shape is […] like that of a drum […]. We walk on one of its plant surfaces, while the other is on the opposite side. ”(Cit. POPPER, 2014, p. 4).

It states shortly afterwards “it made possible Aristarchus and Copernicus’ theories.” (Idem), but her idea was bold because it was about seeing the Earth freely suspended in the middle of space, and perhaps by observation, there were oceans of all ages.

On the other hand, Tales’s idea seemed natural. It is from there and from Xenophanes that Popper will build the cosmology of Parmenides, his disciple, where immutable reality, the immobile Earth is presented as a kind of logical proof (Popper, 2014, p. 14), where his idea will come from. from the one, from the undivided from a single premise, “that which is not is not,” where nothing, that which is not, does not exist. In this world full of Parmenides, there is no room for movement, this is its cosmology, which is what we refer to from the preface, when Popper stated that there is no ontology in it.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.

 

Idealisms and science

17 Sep

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were marked by scientific, technical achievements due to the Industrial Revolution, with a world-wide expanding and flourishing trade, which gave rise to confidence that humanity seemed to flourish and history ruled by Reason, as the Enlightenment alike triumph.

With few dissonant voices, Kierkegaard first and then Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the rest seemed to flow in a full and satisfying turn, the colonies were not spoken, and the Arab and Eastern world seemed to submit to the Western order, but there was something to disturb the colonial struggles. and the danger of war, which would see its outbreak in the 19th century. The science that seemed to do so much had an Achilles heel, had not yet solved the problem of social disputes, not only that which subjected workers and colonies, but especially the trade wars and disputes that came to subject the defeated.

It was the exacerbation of nationalism, which now returns, the trade war between nations, now between the US and China, but also between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that made the first to be called war of war, with 10 million dead. Amid the two wars emerged the Vienna Circle, neopositivism and neologicism, among several other names a prominent scientific name was Karl Popper, among others, such as Godel, Carnap, Hans Kelsen and Moritz Schlick.

In the scientific field besides Husserl who criticizes the method, Popper will also propose that the positivist inductive method presented itself to science as a volatile knowledge, which could not guarantee anything about the constancy of observed facts, and it is not possible to affirm that any assumption is the truth. with absolute precision, what Heisenberg physics already said.

But his return to Parmenides is more essential, where idealism began, and there is its ontological root: ‘being is’ and ‘non-being is not’, there is no contradiction or third hypothesis.

By stating in the previous post the return to root, it will not be in its heyday of German idealism, or even Hegel’s sacralization, Marx will say that there are new against old Hegelians, but in the origin we will find something essence to the idealism and enlightenment described by Karl Popper .

In the book “The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment” (Popper, 2014) that we find several pearls of idealistic foundations, the first in the preface by editor Arne Friemuth Petersen, he states that he gave the lecture quoting “To be or not Of Hamlet, to which Popper himself interrupted, stating more or less this:

“You see, Parmenides was neither a language analyst nor an ontologist, but a cosmologist. Your “Being” has nothing to do with ontology. ”(Popper, XIII, 2014).

I was also amazed to read this right from the preface to the book that speaks of the worldview at the origin of idealism and also of the Enlightenment, not only in Parmenides, but according to Popper himself also in Xenophanes cosmology and Parmenides epistemology (page XV). , which comes to clarify a non-rational origin, as one might suppose, he will propose that Heraclitus (everything changes) and Parmenides (nothing changes) “were reconciled and combined in modern science” (p. XX), and thus faces of it. currency.

In the notes of the Brazilian post-impression, fragments found after printing, there are several notes by Popper, the seventh that says: “Historical hypothesis: Tales is the inventor of the rational discussion method”, new surprise, but the Enlightenment was born there. back.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.

 

 

Mediocracy and ignorance

16 Sep

Mediocracy is one that brings “middle” knowledge above all, always has a ready opinion, based on “doxa” never in epistemy, and if it has episteme (much of classical epistemology this is) it is a set of rules and schemes that treat an object but ignore its fundamentals.
Shortly after World War II, it was Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull who developed this, and I was glad to see the quote in daily El Pais, which is: “systemic processes [that] enable those with average levels of competence to rise to positions. of power, driving both the supercompetent and the totally incompetent out of their way, ”can be seen in schools, political and religious groups where“ rebels ”are dismissed.
Also now Youtubers who speak of politics, philosophy and even theology, are many theologians of apocalypse and puritanism of false morals, while good readings and deepening are dispensed with on any subject.
But El País newspaper cites an author and a principle he did not know, “the secondary illiterate,” an expression coined by Hans Magnus Enzensberger, who uses this for people who have a wealth of useful knowledge that, however, does not lead him to question the intellectual foundations that produced that knowledge.
I insisted with my students and in various posts here the discussion of the foundations, especially of idealism and enlightenment that guide much of the reasoning and the “best minds” of this “secondary illiteracy”, make catch phrases, judge context by isolated facts, or refer to some extraordinary theoretical principle, generally know only the principle and not the text from which it originated, they take away unprepared minds and hearts, eager for something new.
I have not, never had, and never intend to exhaust the fundamentals, but we must go in search of these, warns Edgar Morin in the book “In Search of the Lost Fundamentals”, the great architect of the complexity method, applauded but badly read.
Also reading the novels, it is possible that some have read Stendhal, Balzac, Tolstoy, and even more contemporary Albert Camus, or Oscar Wilde’s “Portrait of Dorian Gray,” but few know or read a worthy representative of Generation X, Bret Easton Ellon, or Paul Auster who wrote “In the Land of Last Things” showing a sober future of valuelessness, unrestrained consumption and a constant search for death or whatever. This is not an exercise in arrogance, without naming names I see successful authors (perhaps cites Paulo Coelho) who sell millions of books and that the time spent reading this is the same to read something that speaks more about the contemporary world and its realities. Haruki Murakami, for example, explains why young people feel tortured, is a Nobel candidate. But all this is not new, to take apart the easy speech of… now with the new media… Robert Musil, in “The Young Törless,” speaks of cruelty as he moves into adulthood at a military school, where he learns cruelty. , morality and sexuality. His is the phrase used in the quoted report from El País: “If stupidity […] did not perfectly resemble progress, skill, hope and improvement, no one would want to be stupid,” said this before World War I. World, almost a prophecy.

 

Naming elephant and worldview

13 Sep

Deceased in February last year, American and Christian philosopher James W. Sire (1933-2018) did extensive research behind the worldview issue, said it took 30 years, published in 2004, probably to begin to address the theme in 1974.

Also his worldview must be reread, I mean that from 1974 to 2004 the world underwent transformations that it deepened, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the cold war that now seems to be reborn, the fall of dictatorships that seem to come back in all over the planet.

I have not read the book, but one of the book’s chapters and also its commentators have helped formulate an idea, though inaccurate, of his main book Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, publisher IVP Academic), and the chapter I refer to is the Definitions of Worldview: from Dilthey to Naugle, which in the title is suggestive of some idealism which the text confirms early on, is available on google Books.

It says at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the origin of the term Weltanschauung originated with Kant (1724-1804), “but only in passing,” and quotes Dilthey verbatim: “to denote a set of beliefs that underlie and shape all human thought and action.” ”(Sire, 2004, p. 23), denoting a set of beliefs that underpin and shape all human thought and action.

Although appropriate, perhaps the most thorough analysis of the term, Heidegger’s reading which updated and developed the subject in a broader sense than that of Kant and Dilthey is lacking, and Hans Georg Gadamer will rightly criticize Dilthey’s conception of the idealist.

To follow the concept of Weltanschauung Cites Nietszche, Wittgenstein, with tours of Plato and Descartes, Foucault and passing Rorthy art, and then begins to address evangelical Christian authors (Reformed is the name abroad), James Orr, Abraham Kuyper , Herman Dooyeweerd, Ronald Nash until he comes to what he calls the new synthesis that would be David Naugle.

However, never runs away from idealism, says he goes from ontology to hermeneutics (not the other way around) and says that this synthetic view is characterized by a “system”. semiotic of narrative signs ”(Sire, 2004, p. 42) quoting Naugle who made such a synthesis. However, the true synthesis hidden behind the text, with a clear nominalist view and the idea of ​​a semiotic system, reveals itself by quoting the biblical text: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe me also, referring to the biblical passage in John 14: 1, because you then ignore the text that says, “In my father’s house are many mansions.”

The idea of ​​signs, myths and symbols embedded in narratives that represent a worldview is not negligible, and it is even important, however any view that is solely about narrative does not do the work of removing the anthropological view and the real “historical view”.  Of what happened, being the idealist and unreal vision of Dilthey’s historicism.

There is another more significant passage, the so-called return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:10: 32), which some idealistic authors and exegetes dislike the name, seeking to idolize the eldest son who stayed at home with his father, who is more conservative. therefore, but also his prodigal son, his defect, went to the world to experiment.

The fact that he returned is commendable, but what a worldview he brought from his deviance, in fact their father is merciful to his conservative and rebel. 

 

Worldview or Cosmicview

12 Sep

Husserl’s concept of the world of life evolves into Heidegger’s Weltanschauung, his student, and is hasty to immediately link it to the worldview, just as both have a closer meaning than what some say is “superior” to the “world of life.” life ”, but in everyday philosophy we do not even get there, they still speak of“ theory ”the empiricists and idealists.
To the letter in German Welt – world, chauen look, means nothing other than a viewpoint on the conception of the world, but it was not just ‘philosophy’ but a vision beyond.
Ronald Nash, a Reformed theologian, gives a definition that seems to encompass many more and be more precise: “Life’s most important set of beliefs… is a conceptual framework by which we consciously or unconsciously apply or adjust all the things we believe, and interpret and judge reality, ”since we know even by normal science only 4% of the universe, that is, baryonic matter, and only now do we penetrate energy and dark mass with black hole studies.
Indigenous religiosity, especially Andean, as an example, has a complex view of theological interaction between original elements (what we call original culture), which interacted with phenomena and ideologies produced in modernity, even Christianity comes in with concepts of literacy. and I work with methods of modernity.
This has caused an interpenetration and reinvention of worldview that can and should be related to a worldview, the link with nature and the cosmos, with animals and which has led to the syncretism and reinvention of culture itself (Geertz 1978), and many other studies point to this worldview, such as Peruvian Maria Rostworowski and Colombian scholar Berna Carolina among others.
What purely economic or ideological studies do not understand is that cultural meanings change according to culture and its own worldview, it is impossible to treat it only with modern, colonialist or even pseudo-liberating categories.
It is necessary to enter the culture itself, to understand its originality, what is deep in the soul of these peoples, without this, colonialism with other names is reinvented.
GEERTZ, Clifford. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1978.

 

Physical cosmovision

11 Sep

Some people are impressed by flat earth theory, or those who do not believe that it is possible to step on the moon and that man has not undertaken this adventure, but quickly believe in miracles, meteors that will collide with the earth and other crazy things.
Stephen Hawking died last year, shortly before he gave an American TV interview, and when American astrophysicist Neil Tyson asked Hawking, “What was there before the Big Bang?” He replied that nothing, maybe there was matter or something, but did not follow the laws of physics, so at the origin there is a meta-physics, or a paraphysics, so the laws of physics and matter were not worth it, but of course there may be a kind of matter.
With his Brief History of Time, Hawking gained fame in the 1960s by explaining the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying it to the logic of black holes throughout the universe, and for those who understand and embrace this worldview it has changed what we think of. science and religion.
It is good to remember that Fr. Teilhard Chardin (1881-1955), before this had already formulated a theory of the Universe, and even Augustine of Hippo (354-430) admitted the Big Bang not with this name of course, but the formation of the universe and the planets. Hawking also agrees with the biblical text that there was a great burst of light, about 13.8 billion years, and from it a dense sphere of matter was expanding.
Hawking gained international fame in formulating, in the 1960s, the theory of the uniqueness of spacetime, applying the logic of black holes to the entire universe. It has also changed the way we view science today, helping to spread physics and astrophysics.
Therefore, what existed before cannot be contemplated in any theory we formulate to explain our current observations. For Hawking, no law of physics applies until the Big Bang occurs.
The universe has evolved independently of what it was before. In 2014 the story of Hawking’s life was told in the Oscar-winning movie “Theory of Everything” (below), but what was before the Big Bang is a big mystery.

 

Antimatter and worldview

10 Sep

By Christmas 2016, the particle accelerator, known for the discovery of the Higgs particle, also called the God particle, was able to produce an antimatter, but precisely the antihydrogen, which for simplicity is supposed to be just like Helium. first substances produced in the Big Bang.
Many people, including scientists, in saying that matter and antimatter themselves produce, believe this rival the idea that God (or God in nonmonotist religions) created the universe, but the most important result would be that matter and antimatter have characteristics. similar, and this should be done by spectroscopic analysis.
At least in the case of Hydrogen, it is to prove that hydrogen and antihydrogen have identical spectroscopic characteristics, predicted in the model called Standard Physics that unifies all physics and gives matter the revelation as “autonomous” and “self-sufficient”. , that is to say it produces itself without needing an external form, this has not yet been proved.
This project is called ALPHA (this is Alpha and Omega, beginning and end), and according to project researcher Jeffrey Hangst this “is a dream come true, it was to this end that he started the project 23 years ago. , “To be able to look at such a transition in an antihydrogen particle.”
According to him, there is still much to do, adding that the discovery has opened “a whole variant of physics”, Jeffrey Hangst, head of CERN’s ALPHA project, said “this is a dream come true.”, and he agree: “that’s what I predisposed myself to 20 years ago: to be able to look at such a transition in an anti-hydrogen particle”.
Much remains to be done, but I can say right now: this is the biggest step in my career and in the history of this kind of experience.”
Hangst assumed, ensuring that this discovery“ opens up a whole new variant of physics. ”
The video below explains what the ALPHA project is: