Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

If there is an ontology in Hegel, it is static, although between being and not being there is becoming it is an affirmation of being and not its poietic or noietic negation (noesis here in the sense of Husserlian phenomenology), it is a feeling or capture at the present moment of change or fusion of horizons, and poiésis in the sense of a mediation or a language of Being.

The ontological resumption that, although static, is present to some extent in Hegel, it is static when it sees being in opposition to non-being, while as a moment of interiority in life and being, it is precisely becoming, which is externalized in a relationship with the Other, the diverse.

However, Peter Sloterdijk’s interpellation to Heidegger in his Rules for the Human Park cannot be overlooked, as well as the crisis of scientific thought in Europe pointed out by Husserl in his work of maturity in which both physicalist and transcendental subjectivism challenges, resuming his Lebenswelt, the world-of-life.

The question of Sloterdijk makes sense when thinking about the dire times of the end of World War II, after the concentration camp but also the Hiroshima bomb of the allies, and in this new “war” against the pandemic it seems to make sense to ask us about the Humanism.

In Heidegger it is like Da-sein, “being-ai” (or being-being), that the human takes on the task of shepherding the being, and it is in the sense of place-time (using the new quantum dimension) that inhabits Man, since the place is now the whole planet, but nationalisms persist, not as an affirmation of peoples that is just and real, but as a delimitation of grazing and interests.

Sloterdijk seems to be right in pointing out that the “unveiling” of political destructiveness has been reduced to its most explicit and encouraged form of being like the formula “will to power” (Sloterdijk, 2012, p. 284) in a “synthesis of humanism and bestialism ”(Sloterdijk, 2000, p. 31), and which seems to remain equally ambiguous as a movement, and it is not possible to avoid mentioning some forms of neo-nationalism that have taken up with great force.

In Heidegger it is like Da-sein, “being-there” (or being-being), that the human takes on the task of shepherding the being, and it is in the sense of place-time (using the new quantum dimension) that inhabits Man, since the place is now the whole planet, but nationalisms persist, not as an affirmation of peoples that is just and real, but as a delimitation of grazing and interests.

Sloterdijk seems to be right in pointing out that the “unveiling” of political destructiveness has been reduced to its most explicit and encouraged form of being like the formula “will to power” (Sloterdijk, 2012, p. 284) in a “synthesis of humanism and bestialism ”(Sloterdijk, 2000, p. 31), and which seems to remain equally ambiguous as a movement, and it is not possible to avoid mentioning some forms of neo-nationalism that have taken up with great force.

SLOTERDIJK, Peter (2000). Regras para o parquet humano: uma resposta à carta sobre o humanismo. Trad. José Oscar de Almeida Marques. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2000.

Sloterdijk, Peter (2014). Regeln für den Menschenpark: ein Antwortschreiben zu Heideggers Brief über den Humanismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2014.