Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

Hegel is too tedious even for those who dominate philosophical discourse, and I think in particular that the question of objectivism x subjectivism, natural x cultural, and other questions posed by thought of modernity, and which are current in everyday life, is already at another point.
The point I place is that of the infernal dichotomies of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro: “Cannibal metaphysics: lines of poststructural anthropology” (Katz Editores, 2010), although there may be a Portuguese edition, a Spanish edition, translated from French, fell into my hands .
It caught my attention because he begins the book on issues that I think are fundamental: the return to things, perspectivism, multinaturalism and anthropological schizophrenia.
The beginning of the first chapter “Anti-narcissus” confesses that he abandoned the idea of ​​making a book to write about it, as Borges did, and he posed a question: “what should be the conceptual anthropology of the peoples that he studies?” “Differences and internal mutations of anthropological theory are explained mainly (and from a historico-critical point of view only) by structures and conjunctures of social formations, ideological debates, intellectual fields and academic contexts that have emerged researchers ? is this the only relevant hypothesis? It would not be possible to proceed from a perspective that shows that the most interesting of the concepts, problems, entities and agents introduced by the anthropological theories have their origin in the imaginative capacity of the societies (or of the peoples, or of the collectives) that propose explain? “(Viveiros de Castro, 2010, p.14).
To these questions he finally penetrates the infernal dichotomy which I consider essential in modernity: “It will not be where the originality of anthropology resides, in this alliance, which is always equivocal but often fruitful, between conceptions and practices from the worlds of the” subject “and of the object” ? “(Idem).
The anti-Narcissus question then is epistemological, that is, politics, and the author states that if everyone is more or less in agreement that it requires a decolonization of thought, and in this lies the anti-narcissus.
Viveiro de Castro’s speech is consistent because he affirms that the “other” is always thought and “invented” according to the sordid interests of the West, and then will discuss “perspectivism” and “multiculturalism”, it is impossible to synthesize them in a post, then we only punctuate these perspectives,

Viveiro de Castro’s speech is consistent because he affirms that the “other” is always thought and “invented” according to the sordid interests of the West, and then will discuss “perspectivism” and “multiculturalism”, it is impossible to synthesize them in a post, then we only punctuate these perspectives, called by the author of “cannibals” or metaphysics of predation.
Perspectivism is the idea that every theory is particular and depends on the “perspective of the subject,” or multiculturalism is the idea of the “coexistence” of many cultures in different regions, but both lack and a “decolonization” of thought, so the dichotomy remains .