Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

Networks are simple, but any analysis using even simple concepts such as “weak links,” “bridges,” “centrality,” and “degrees of separation” can, as the number of actors in a network increases, exponentially increase its complexity.
There are many everyday reasonings that lead to this misguided thought, the simple idea that life, its origin in the universe, what we do and what we are, has simple answers leads to a mistaken simplistic reasoning, from the scientific to the religious.
The idea that God exists or not for example is complex, because its three structuring elements are not simple: faith that is belief in what is not evident (not so simple), hope whose element can often arrive at the absurdity that is – the same in situations of despair, war or any extreme gravity; And finally: charity (in the sense of agape love) which is perhaps the most impossible thing to codify, yet easy to feel how much it really is in her presence.
But scientific reasoning is the most complex, from the formulas of reductionists such as Wilhem Ockham, English nominalist of the eleventh century who created the famous Ockham Razor, which if it is between two explanations of a certain object, I get the simplest, but it questions remains: who guarantees that the correct explanation is not the complex one.
Nominalism was fought by the realists, and the fundamental problem is whether or not there are universal, which are realities in themselves, and transcendent in relation to private ones, that is, the qualities (Plato enunciated the formula universais ante rem), or Properties since things are immanent qualities (for Aristotle: university in re).
From Duns Scotus, who called the razor principle of economics (of reasoning?) And later Descartes and Kant, although Kant’s masterpiece was a critique of Descartes: Critique of pure reason, but what lies at the base Of this discourse, is sometimes forgotten, or neglected: subjectivity, the transcendent, and the faith.
Duns Scotus, who is at the origin of this thought, curiously asserts that the truths of faith could not be understood by reason, the contrary that had been said by Thomas Aquinas, which was realistic, and what Kant desires in criticizing “pure reason” is Fact that it can not subsist on its own, needs to “transcend” to the object, creates a subjectivism of its own to which some fundamentalist currents will associate, Kant was a descendant of Puritan Protestants.
His task at the epistemological level was to try to make a synthesis between Descartes and Leibniz’s rationalism and the empiricism of Hume, Locke and Berkeley, but he will be especially useful to nascent liberalism, although this connection is complex, one can simplify it to taste Of simplism: to separate subject and object.
Yes, it is not only this, but Hegel will finish the task of liberal idealism: to construct an eternal idea of ​​State, to organize religion in a way that is convenient to “subjectivism”, removing it from concrete and objective things, and finally to create a “Phenomenology of the Spirit” .
Those who wish to make this understanding a reductionist and simplistic task will read history as those who wished to write it did so, separate the subjective: religious, historical, political, and even religious, from concrete historical consciousness: facts, miseries and corruptions .
The apology of ignorance, the absence of deep thought serve whom? Post-true mentality.