RSS
 

The originality of Being in Heidegger

13 Nov

The great question of Being in contemporary philosophy emerged from the thought of Martin Heidegger, a student of Husserl from which he inherited phenomenology as a method, essentially proposed to penetrate the question of being.
Although it has been studied by philosophy at all times, even Kantian idealism has an ontology that is displaced from Being to the subject, it already existed in Plato as an idea (Platonic eidos is not Kantian) and Aristotle as substance.
The being does not manifest directly, but always with the being of the being, you can play a joke with the contemporaneity that is the sick Being, because the Being of the Being is hidden in appearance.
One can seek pure Being in an ethereal existence of a God, but it is the existential door through man that one has access to Being, in this case Heidegger is applying the phenomenological method, he departs from man in fact (not idealized by example), let it manifest itself as it is and only then try to understand it in its manifestation after the presence.
Its first existence is being-in-the-world, one of the most widely accepted translations for Dasein, but as this being is also a Being-in-Situation, Heidegger’s careful reading can clarify this, I make a translation of being-being itself. – in the world, because Heidegger also uses the worldview (Weltanstchauung), which is open to the world and the cosmos, including the worldview.
This concept is important for Heidegger’s understanding of Being because it means this worldview as the circle of beliefs, affects, interests, and even philosophical concepts that Being has, even if it does not study philosophy, Being is “being-in-a-situation” that It does not mean just place or even context, but the very vision one sees in seeing the world, its “worldview”.
So many ideas and beliefs seem obvious to a person, but practically all of them are tied to temporal situations and thus limited by the “situation” that does not exclude thinking.

This vídeo sumarizes some ideas from Hiedegger:

 

Science, conscience and complexity

12 Nov

Modern science, especially from the seventeenth century onwards, built a new world that renounced metaphysics, theory, and was methodologically rooted in the mathematical project of nature mastery and the experiments and measurements for this domain project.
But has dominated nature reacted and reacted in unthought ways, extreme climates whether from European summers or American colds, rains and burns, where even the oceans already show signs of depletion, dominate or destroy nature?
The very limits of science as logic and power are in check, will we rule our lives solely by markets and their values, do cold numbers say anything about man?
In addition to the physical and scientific paradigms about new technologies, there are emerging social problems that worry even those who have always taken advantage of markets, economist Federico Cingano in an OECD study said: “When income inequality increases, economic growth falls,” thus it is inevitable to approach the subject from any perspective.
Beyond the problem of consciousness, philosophically or technically, there is a social dimension that is correlated, not indifferent, this also holds for consciousness in the historical question.
Edgar Morin warns of the teaching system, where it is still hermetically taught: “We do not teach the understanding of the other, which is fundamental in our day, we do not teach uncertainty, what is the human being, as if our human identity does not it was of no interest.
The most important things to know are not taught, ”he said in the Fronteiras do Pensamento (Thought Borders), a Brazilian cultural program.
He sees the crisis of democracy as the obscure relationship with the “enormous powers of money, which has led to corruption everywhere.
The emptiness of thought, coupled with this corruption, leads to a loss of confidence in democracy, and this has favored the neutral authoritarian regimes as we have seen in Turkey, Russia, Hungary and as we now see in the crisis of democracy in Peru and Brazil, ”the case Bolivia today is a separate case.
He also sees with concern the fundamentalist and ethnic closure: “Unless people become aware of the human destiny community on earth, people will close in on their religious, ethnic identities, and so on.
We live in a dark period of history, the only consolation is that these dark periods are not eternal ”we believe in the future. Edgar Morin’s full interview on Thought Frontiers follows below:

 

The question of consciousness

11 Nov

The big issue for artificial intelligence was until recently autonomy, robots, autonomous machines and now autonomous cars, with all the controversy the project evolves, Germany, for example, already provides a line of autonomous cars for the next decade that will begin.

The new issue is the question of consciousness, it has occupied the minds of philosophers for over a century, and can conceptualize in general terms the ability to take actions and consequences of these actions, which has to do with autonomy, because autonomy It is to analyze the consequences of acts performed by machines, the limits of dangerousness and privacy.

In the context of social or historical consciousness, this was Gadamer’s great debate with Dilthey, to which he attributed a conception of romantic consciousness for the absence of a “historical mediation” from facticity, and asks “how will the task of hermeneutics ”and finds a common ground between Schleiermacher and Hegel” (Gadamer, 2002, Truth and Method, p. 256), with the concepts of reconstruction and integration, and according to him, Dilthey makes the intermediate path between them.

Gadamer explains: “Schleiermacher and Hegel could present the two extreme possibilities of answering this question.

Their answers could be assigned to the concepts of reconstruction and integration. For both Schleiermacher and Hegel, in the beginning there is the awareness of a loss and alienation from tradition, which is what drives hermeneutic reflection” (idem).

However, he will say, each of them will determine the task of hermeneutics differently, and what Gadamer calls reconstruction and integration means the separation of preconceptions and alienation from tradition, and therefore rebuild and integrate.

Schleiermacher’s famous thesis is “What matters is to understand a better author than one would have understood himself,” Gadamer thought about the work of art, but Schleiermacher is stuck with his conception of “history of the spirit” which is his concept.

What Hegel says, according to Gadamer, is the creation of a category by stating that the essence of the historical spirit is not the restitution of the past, but the mediation of thought with the present life, which is the prevalence and idealism of the ideal over the factual questions.

And the origin of consciousness, as it happened, is that Terence Deacon is right in claiming that the mind came from matter, and with it came consciousness, if it is true, it is possible to think that somehow the machine, on the levels of intelligence artificial, you may have “consciousness” and then you will know that it is machine and that we humans are not.

What we relate in the videos of Gadamer and Peter Sloterdijk was to introduce this question, and the question of truth is proposed as the genesis of historical consciousness (Gadamer, 2002, p. 265), so machine consciousness cannot have this level.

GADAMER H. G.(2002) Verdade e Método (Truth and Method), 4th ed., Tr. Flavio P. Meurer. Petrópolis: Vozes (Brazilian edition).

 

Between the eternal and the temporal

08 Nov

There is no dualism between body and mind, as the idealists want, but there is that which is temporal and what is eternal, but in a strictu sense at least in the broad sense, it takes principles to determine the values and what drives humanity in critical times of society.
Byung Chul Han, in a January lecture at the Barcelona CCB where he showed the tearing of our time between narcissism, self-consumerism and an absence of relationship with the other, which must revolutionize time, or the way we manage it.
He said of the other and in reference to the universities: “In any case, we live in a time of radical conformism: the university has clients and only creates workers, it does not form spiritually; the world is at the limit of its capacity; maybe that will short circuit it and we get that original animal back. ”
He stated at the Barcelona CCB: “The current acceleration diminishes the ability to remain: we need a proper time that the productive system does not allow us to have; we need some free time, which means standing still with nothing productive to do, but not to be confused with recovery time to keep working; time worked is time lost, not time for us. ”
Modern humanism criticized by his master Peter Sloterdijk who asserts this sense back to the original animal, of course, is not in the sense of wild animality, but the idea that he must regain his relationship with nature will not be saved and will even condemn planet. Sloterdijk clearly outlines these ideas in the video below.
What the natural man means and his relations with the eternal, now not only nature, but in a worldview of paradise and eternal life, means that we must look at remaining values.
When questioned by the Sadducees, who were a more aristocratic class in Judaism, about who a woman who would marry several brothers after their deaths, would tell them that believing in eternal life means that the people will no longer die, Jesus response the question would not make sense and also that God is “God of the living” (Luke 20:38).
Looking only at temporal values and conjunctural situations prevents us from seeing the future and the eternal.
Follows Peter Sloterdijk’s interview on the braziliam program Fronteiras do Pensamento *“Borders of Thought”).

 

Truth, Certainty and the Self

07 Nov

We are full of certainties, which is different from reason although we often say that we are “right”, certainty is a cognitive aspect of the subject (idealism will be called subjective) that is lived by certain conviction, truth on the other hand is ontological , that is, it is of Being.
What did St. Augustine mean by saying that Truth dwells within every Being, being religious means the presence of God, but it can be thought of in a broader cosmological sense, we are all part of the same universe, and while Being though part, we belong to the whole, the cosmos and its complexity.
Thus ontological Truth are properties of statements as far as they can be proven, the Greeks use the expression Aletheia, in the a-lethe (not forgetting) sense which is still widely used in Western civilization, but there is another meaning which is “Language it is the house of being ”.
Latin carries a meaning of truth as a logical statement, in the opposite sense of Truth, although Latin has developed scholastic ontology, in fact, it is bound by the study of language, whose nominalist truth has created great controversies with realism.
A third meaning is the Jewish Emunach, from which comes the ethical-moral concept from which almost all Western ethics is descended, and not by chance is linked to “law”, but in Judaism it is within each person, and in this sense linked to the idea of “faithfulness” to rules and laws.
Modern society has built two new modalities of truth, philosophers prefer the word plurivocity, the utilitarian and pragmatic, what is useful is true, the rest is disposable and changeable. Just to explain plurivocity is not univocal.
It was through Husserl that ontology and general metaphysics gave way to new concepts, where the idea of Being can be seen within a formal and material science of essences.
The importance of cosmological discussion is that it being in the field of theology and psychology can and should be seen in contrast to dualistic ontology sees the world separated in body and spirit, curious because one of the most commonly used metaphors to define the set of souls is the body.
One of the best-known passages is the letter to Ephesians: “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were heard, where would the smell be? ”(1 Corinthians 12:17).
The basis of spiritualism and Pharisaism is ontological dualism, one sees the spirit and the other only the body, and this comes from idealism, where reality is all spiritual, matter is an illusory representation of truth.

Andy Postner is co-founder of Capital Good Fund (CGF), a nonprofit microcredit based in Providence Rhode, Island, and created ways outs of poverty, see he´s TEdX:

 

About truth and philosophy

06 Nov

It was rationalism that led to doubting outer existence, the classic division of body and mind, the question until the late Middle Ages was between realists and nominalists, the former saying that the real is and the latter we only name what is. outside, what exists is in the mind.
Imannuel Kant states that the perceptions of the senses are after the experience while a universal a priori is necessary, using the realists’ argument, calling it analytical judgment while the first are the synthetic ones, made from the gathering of information.
The pinnacle of idealism is Hegel, which sets out several ideal concepts: state, spirit, and ethics, but the crisis of modernity will return to old dilemmas: language, discourse, and what is the thing or Being, there are then three twists: the linguistic, the ontological and the “sacred”.
Karl Klaus (1874-1936) already complained about the truth in the journalistic medium, it is true that the cultural industry moved masses, and the network media now too, but what about the truth?
The truth of facticity has lost its strength, there are alternative views and even the corruption of facts, something absurd as “alternative facts”, is not at all hermeneutic because it is precisely its absence, the lack of a hermeneutic circle where preconceptions are. overcome and new horizons can be traced that reinterpret the facts and build the future.
Groups entrenched in their half-truths behave only as twisted, dialogical, acceptance of the Other, and Empathy are but demagogic forms as attempts to co-opt members for the crowd itself.
Of course there is a latent future, sectors of society where cooperation, solidarity and the exercise of seeing the Other is already exercise, are groups and people who have changed the dogmatic way of seeing the world for a broader vision, beyond the group and from the crowd.
But still there are those who closing ranks in their “groups” will demand blind obedience, respect for “authority,” and often will resort to authoritarian methods of bending the Other.
Truth will emerge amid chaos, in the niches of society where there is Phronesis, true reflection, looking at the world as a whole and the other with respect to its particularities.

 

Hermeneutics and the truth

05 Nov

The great architect of hemeneutics in the twentieth century was Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), influenced by the studies of Martin Heidegger, who was a student at the Universität Marburg.
In his masterpiece Truth and Method: Elements of a Philosophical Hermeneutic, published in 1960, Gadamer not only revolutionized modern Western hermeneutics, but reoriented it by creating a new philosophical hermeneutic based on language ontology.
According to Heidegger, hermeneutics is philosophical rather than scientific (in the sense of conventional methods still in force), ontological rather than epistemological, existential rather than methodological, because it seeks the essence of understanding and not its norm or “method.” The study and understanding of existence, since it allows the knowledge of Being, precedes norms, even that considered “ethical” by the Enlightenment / idealism, because “Sabbath belongs to Man and not Man belongs to Sabbath” , here in reference to the “Jewish ethical rule” or Sabbath-keeping Sabbath.
According to Heidegger, hermeneutics would be philosophical rather than scientific; ontological rather than epistemological; existential rather than methodological. It would be responsible for seeking the essence of understanding, not the standardization of the comprehensive process.
The study of comprehension would be confused with the study of existence, since it would allow the knowledge of the Self.
Although contemporary hermeneutics comes from Schleiermacher and Dilthey, who advocated opening the spirit to an age that judges the antecedent, and this would be the historical process, Gadamer points out that we cannot abandon the present and take the past as having a “historical lesson”.
On the contrary, it is the terms of past questions that can define the terms of the present. The fact that man experiences a historical reality causes his worldview, and consequently, his possibilities of knowledge to depart from the preconceptions that surround him, making it impossible to completely eliminate them, so that he can read the absolute truth, as intended modern illuminists and historicists, is a veil over the truth and not itself.
The hermeneutic circle that was already drawn in Heidegger’s work from Gadamer’s point of view has an ontologically positive sense for understanding, which, according to him, in the course of interpretation, the elaboration of new projects and a new horizon is necessary.
Thus only with the admission of the preconceptions coming from the historicity of the interpreter that when properly analyzed in their veracity, allows a new understanding, the development of new horizons, truly coherent.
Going from pre-comprehension to analysis and synthesis is to remain in error, however creative this process may be, the rupture of preconceptions comes from outside, from openness and reworking.
That is why addicted, closed, provincial and demagogic systems succumb, crush the Being, claim to give it “identity”, but give only closure and obsession.

 

Euphoria and Serenity

04 Nov

The opposite of serenity is not irritation or anger, this is the opposite of calmness, that 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.

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KJNQoIXZ4k

 

 

Between affliction and peace, the infinite and the eternal

01 Nov

Many seek happiness at any price, so we reflect empathy early in the week, then reflect on the anguish and distress that are axes of growth and suffering, but it is they that understandably lead us to real happiness, built peace.
Kierkegaard’s “Concept of Anguish” (1884) shows multiple forms: the anguish of freedom or nothingness, there is a personal choice of this that the author calls the choice of oneself, the anguish of goodness and obstinacy, the anguish of sexuality, that of tomorrow and that of the finite, it is prior to faith.
At this point it is possible to link to a phenomenological view, and still to link it to the interpretation of the biblical passage of man’s fall into sin (Genesis 3), ignoring the Enlightenment / Idealist culture, which is the anguish of freedom or choice that occupies a essential role for the Self.
According to Kierkegaard man is called, as spirit (addition and mind), to place the relation between the elements that characterize him structurally, likewise those that can conflict with each other (body and soul, temporality and eternity), choosing a form of existence among the innumerable ones historically presented to him, here the phenomenology.
Although innumerable, Kierkegaard pedagogically lists some choices that are choices in three life styles (or “stages”): the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious, is reductive but interesting.
The openness I see (in it is only existence but could be essence as Being) is that anguish is therefore “nothingness” that each person in his indeterminacy “is” at the moment of establishing synthesis to the point of being. give yourself an “identity”, a controversial theme in idealism, here that I think is possible to connect it to Heidegger’s “being in the world”, although different concepts.
Contrary to the fall the biblical passages of the New Testament could be placed on the beatitudes in Mt 5: 1-12, we highlight two that were dealt with in these days, verses 4 and 5: “Blessed are the afflicted, for they shall be comforted, blessed. the meek, for they shall possess the earth, ”and verse 9,” Blessed are they that bring peace, for they shall be called the children of God.”
But Kierkegaard’s fundamental help is on the question of identity, definitions as being-in-itself and being-in-the-world, and the concept of the eternal which is a launch into the “infinite.”

 

The desired and not built peace

31 Oct

We know that the “pax romana” was the surrender to the empire that dominated the good face of the civilized world at the time, it is true today that there were already people in various parts of the planet, but their paleontological records do not leave many marks of their cultures, and perhaps as Rousseau thought ‘the good savage’ lived in peace, but in the natural conflict with nature.
The “eternal peace” elaborated by the idealists and idolized by the worshipers of the “modern state” is not deepened, because in fact for many this will be the state, excuse the final irony of humanity and should only be perfected. Kant published in 1798, in a Berlin magazine, the essay “Announcement of the forthcoming signing of a treaty for perpetual peace in philosophy”, which was a resumption of his essay two years earlier: “For perpetual peace”, that was confined in its philosophy.
This is because the goal was to resolve peace within a single state, or in terms of relations between different states, which we can see even with the emergence of the UN and the rise of democratic nations, which in essence the idea of state remains enlightened. .
From this essay it can be assumed that what the philosopher understood by philosophy means that if systems of philosophy found a solution to their conflicts they could help political systems to resolve their conflicts, so it remains in the idealistic field.
The conflict between object and subject, which supposes that it is in the object that is the conflict and not in the subject is the hypothesis of the idealism/enlightenment system, but it is in the facticity of the historical subjects that the conflicts are, I do not understand as the historicity romantic because facticity is the Heideggerian concept of the subject thrown into the world with his facts.
Thus, what is meant by peace beyond idealism is that which can be built on the facticity of everyday life, in every conflict encountered in every fact, without being confined to theoretical or philosophical assumptions, but where the “being thrown” is. in the world”.
Peace, therefore, is built and not an agreement between states or within them, the peace treaty of the 1st. world war led to the second, some readers of world history say, the fact is that there were two wars and the “modern” states not only did not avoid, but are authors. “If you want peace, build peace,” said an Italian politician, very few understanding this.