Arquivo para May, 2018
Clarify the clearing
03
May
Man always wanted the light, he always went in 
search of the “clearing”, the Myth of the Cave of Plato is nothing else, the light in the medieval chapels and arts, the clarification (Aufklärung) that Kant pointed out as the man’s exit from his minority and the current “clearings” of Heidegger and “clarifying” Sloterdijk glades, the plural is on my own.
In medieval art the “light” must be associated with art, although the texts of Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Averrois and many others are worthy of reading and analysis, it was in the arts that the idea of luminosity was more present, an example, is the church Saint-Chapelle (photo) consecrated in 1248 AD, with example of the dematerialization of the walls and substitution by stained glass.
What should be the exercise of full freedom, the great bet of modernity, actually confined humanism to a dead end, enough to ask the question if we live in an enlightened age, opinions of all philosophical nuances will answer: it is not an enlightened time, so the pretense of enlightenment gave blindness and civilization crisis.
Heidegger’s answers about the “clearing” in the midst of this forest of questions (some think it is only information) was the resumption of being, certainly important, but Sloterdijk’s response to the letters on humanism puts it in question: that is “clearing.”
I do not have a definitive answer, as Sloterdijk is not, even if he points “the spheres” as the circles of imprisonment of being, of thought and I would say here, even religion.
My response contemplates Byung-Chul Han’s book “Expulsion from the Other,” the option for a massified, uniformed society and for that without values would destroy the human wealth of diversity, but it is precisely this diversity that seems to rebel, and may give fruits. Clarifying the clearing, in the face of the civilizing crisis of our time, can not find more answer, as in the past, in the idea of single thinking, diversity is now necessary.
Utopia and Confusion
02
May
Before proceeding to show the relation between being and technique, 
one must make a digression for the catastrophic technician-prophecies and the confucioness, that is to say, it is called network nor everything that is network, lends itself the artificial intelligence to human while the opposite is true, and finally, post-human machines are created without an existential response to man.
Brade Runner 2049 could not succeed, who better than the first one takes a plunge into the human existential problem, while “Androids dream of electric sheep?” Asks in his book Philip K. Dick, who inspired the films of the series, is 1968 (sic), including a hardcover edition to celebrate the 50 years recently.
Confusioness is a term coined by Lucien Sfez, who in addition to communication participated in the projects Genome, Biosphere II and Artificial Life, so it is not someone who speaks without understanding the possibilities, the daydreams and the challenges of technology.
At the same time recognizes, among the daydreams of course, “The utopia of a total record; to make a being in our image, as a man is that of God, thanks to science, indisputable, transparent, luminous as a sacred gladius; the belief in the omnipotence of an electronic science; the illusion of freedom; and the creation of a perfect machine “(SFEZ, 1996).
I would not use the word utopia, I consider it a confusioness one, since what Thomas Morus wrote would be a community society without attachments and with a “social health” greater than that dreamed by the Enlightenment, and which is the very science that created this confusional and not Thomas Morus (1478-1535), was not a dreamer was a statesman, held various public offices, including Henry VIII’s chancellor, who was precisely his tormentor for religious reasons.
The limits of the technique are within the possibilities and challenges, among these are those that allow space travel no longer in large ships, but in micro-ships that would travel in quantum worm-holes and computers that use larger techniques volume of data, with greater volume of data communicated and processed.
In the field of possibilities it is worth reading “Physics of the Impossible” (2008) by Michio Kaku, among the field of challenges is worth reading “Le Mythe de la Singularité” by Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (2017), who tunes the challenges of Artificial Intelligence and punctuates points of pure fantasy.
I will not resort to more arguments, it is impossible to convince anyone in the field of hypotheses does not abandon the hypothesis of the transhuman or the machine smarter than the man, just see the delusions about today’s social media, use the argument of a saint, perhaps few will know this phrase of St. Francis: “Begin by doing what is necessary, then what is possible, and suddenly you will be doing the impossible”, it is true that it speaks in the field of mysticism, but who said that it is separated from the physical world or at least the meta- physicist.
SFEZ, Lucien. (1996) Saúde Perfeita – crítica a uma nova utopia (Perfect health – criticism of a new utopia). São Paulo: Loyola.
The glade of being
01
May
The understanding of Heidegger’s position on what he considers the
“clearing” depends on the proper understanding of the concepts of transcendence, world, and world formation, which can be simplified as a worldview (Weltanschauung), but is explicit in his works Being and time (1927) and Fundamental concepts of metaphysics (1929/30).
This is the description made by Sloterdijk in his Rules for the Human Park, since he tends to simplify this horizon of questions that Heidegger transposes when he enunciates a radical difference between animal and man, in an attempt to overcome the infernal dichotomy between culture and nature, which comes in modernity on the man “wolf of man” or “good savage”, among other possibilities.
Heidegger’s position on the difference between animals and men is linked to his interpretation of human existence, its transcendence (Transzendenz) in which man, and only man, is the maker of the world.
At a winter conference in 1929/30, he elaborated what would later be “The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: world – finitude – solitude,” he deals directly with the question of the difference between animal and man.
Heidegger also does not accept that questioning is in a theory of the evolution of species, precisely because he has diagnosed that all theory of this kind already presupposes previous determinations of both man and the that is the animal.
It is neither creationist nor evolutionist what he wants to know is what ontological characters depend on the statement that makes the vitality of the living before the lifeless: stone and mineral materials in generation, cosmic dust in a more cosmological sense.
With this will formulate three theses to create a characterization of the essence of life: 1) the stone is without world; 2) the animal is poor of the world, and, 3) man is world-maker. Heidegger is clear in his philosophical re fl ection that the relationship between metaphysics and positive science still needs to be thought of in its characteristic ambiguity of always differentiating subject from object, so its transcendence is not idealistic, in the phenomenological-hermeneutical method, the modal differences that make explicit in the different ways of being considered in them, the stone-being, the animal-being and the being-man, being clear, each being and being.
They also resolve two other premises of modernity, a religious one that is the crisis between creationism and evolutionism, there is an evolution because man is the formator of the world and there is a creation because it distinguishes itself from the animal that is not the formator of the world.
It is not a question of strengthening the thesis of anthropocentrism, so Sloterdijk’s criticism is valid, since for him it is necessary to “clarify the clearing”, but for him as for Heidegger humanism has become anti-humanism, to assert as “the most miserable” of the “history of Europe” (Sloterdijk, 2000, p.20), and suffice to recall the horror of the two world wars.
