Beyond idealism, new logic and pandemic
29
Apr
Kant’s simplification led to abstract formulations so complicated that it would
be inappropriate to call them complex since he intended the opposite, but the attempt to reduce 12 categories and three central ideas: the psychological (soul), the cosmological (the world as a whole) ) and the theological (of God).
This will produce an ingenious, rational but very complicated construct, which are the three judgments that would link Subject (A) to predicates (B), the judgments: analytical, synthetic a priori and a posteriori, the idea of a priori judgments was the most controversial because it sees the mind as having a natural memory.
Edmund Husserl and Gottlob Frége, who had a strong arithmetical logic formation, looked at this Kantian theme, imagining that logic could not be reformulated based on action, that is, we do not change our mind because our way of acting changes, this is based on all who seeing the change in the logic of everyday life caused by the pandemic, they imagine that the mind does not change.
Husserl’s departure from mathematical logic to the world of experiences, under the strong influence of Franz Brentano who worked on intentionality (see the previous post, the other eidos), made him formulate a new world of experiences, from human emotions to total life of the world (Lebenswelt).
While the Logical Investigations date back to 1900 and 1901, their idea of intentionality formulated in their phenomenology as the return to things themselves, or how they appear to consciousness through phenomenological reduction, their epoché, which is to place our concepts and thoughts in parentheses, a clear disagreement with the Cartesian cogito.
On its return to the Greek eidos, it will promote eidetic variation, which can be explained as from the phenomenological epoché (putting concepts in parentheses) it produces an eidetic variation on the idea we had of the thing (concepts, thoughts or objects) and it can produce in the end new “horizons”, a fundamental category for the dialogue about the new.
Our pandemic phenomenon produced an “colletive” epoché, a new look at a deadly virus, we had to produce an eidetic variation, what we think of this “little flu”, and this should produce new “horizons” about the concepts of how to live the day to day: attitudes health, economic solidarity and total reformulation of family life: spaces, time, food and relationships and the use of technology.
Idealists continue to imagine that everything will be as it was before, they did not do the epoché pandemic.
