Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

In this sense, we speak of an inversion of consciousness, but consciousness in Hegel and in all Enlightenment, it follows that experience is translated into a dialectical movement of consciousness with itself. In the last instance, in absolute knowledge one perceives Identity of subject and object, but in the logic of fusion and not the distinction between subject and object. This removes all possibility and legitimacy from experience, since man has to be in the very content to accept it and the consciousness to acquire certainty of itself;

In Gadamer’s logic, “the essence of experience is here thought from the beginning, from something in which experience is already overcome.

For experience itself can never be science, “in addition, Heidegger warns that Hegel does not think of experience as a dialectic; On the contrary, visualizes the dialectic from experience, it would be said that it is not the consciousness of the world, but the world of consciousness.

If from experience one never makes science because there is “an insurmountable opposition to knowledge and to that teaching flowing from a theoretical or technical knowledge,” object of several studies of ours, because one always faces an opening for other experiences. One must accept the fact that certainties and dogmas do not last forever and are subject to change. The only plausible certainty is impossibility of knowing everything.

The more experienced an individual is, the more awareness he has of the infinite possibilities of the human being and the more he is aware of his Being.

Thus the path made Gadamer possesses elements to conclude that experience is the consciousness of one’s own human finitude and limitations, a reference to classical philosophy, in Aeschylus is quite illustrative: “to learn by suffering”, that is, painfully, the Man becomes aware of his separation from the divinity and temporality of his existence. Every experience, no matter how consumed or exhausted, always constitutes openness. Not even man has an essence. Being means a power to be itself, because it has the characteristics of indefinition and the infinite possibilities. In this way, it becomes incoherent to speak of experience in the teleological sense, as Husserl and Bacon, and Hegel’s deformed form.

Tradition has to reach experience, just as language is complementary and from it comes speech, which is a you, you must differentiate your experience from truly hermeneutic experience, see works by Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Lévinas, while the first Can take place in the form of knowledge of persons, making you an object of analysis, or recognizing it as a person, but still remains with reference to the interpreter itself, hermeneutics allows the other as an interpreter is therefore a step forward in knowledge Of truth.

The hermeneutic experience is one that assumes the consciousness of the actual history. Tradition has to be truly understood as a you. All otherness has something to say and its condition of another must be respected. Pretensions or preconceptions can not be imposed. The opening occurs in a mutual way, that is, between those who “listen” and those who “speak something”, even with the possibility that it is contrary to the interpreter, according to Gadamer.

The actual consciousness is the recognition that it is structured in the form of experience in Gadamer, but it is necessary to understand the hermeneutic experience, especially since it is a concept of difficult understanding, because the overvaluation of scientific knowledge, notably in the nineteenth century, Led to a distortion of its real value.

In the scientific point of view, experience is all that can be repeated by whoever wishes at any time, that is, it is fundamentally linked to an objectifying “path” of knowledge, sometimes called practice, but which practice? . Gadamer was to revisit just what various philosophical nuances understand by scientific truth and method, it is not a conclusion just a “unveiling.”

For Francis Bacon, all knowledge should come from experience. It was in this way somewhat unpretentious to face the experience that later came to a valid generalization until it was opposed, proposing the interpretatio natura, a way of “gradual access to true and sustainable generalities” and that later it was systematized and became “method “By Hume, considered the father (perhaps the grandfather) of empiricism, so through the observation of nature, the inductive method allows access to the general, raised to this category after the rational organization of the data obtained and the proof of the hypotheses, but Empiricism has also generated contradictions.

Husserl attempted to get rid of this experience bias of the linkage with the science of all experimentation, claiming that it occurs in the world of life, therefore, it predates its idealization. Here in the sense of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which tried to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. As we know, inspired by Descartes, the phenomenon was something that showed “repudiation by the empirical sciences”, which denotes the lack of appreciation for the experiences trying to make all interpretation by “reason”. If only that which is evident in consciousness can be true, surely the senses lead to deception. However, Husserl remained attached to what he wanted to free himself, but Heidegger and Gadamer took the necessary steps.

Gadamer objected to the objection of simplifying the process of producing experience by focusing on its relation to science and to the formation of concepts. The process of experience truly takes place on its negative side, that is, it deconstructs generalities and typicities, does not correspond to expectations, as it affirms in Truth and Method “the negativity of experience has, therefore, a particular productive meaning. It is not simply a deception that becomes visible and, consequently, a correction, but what is acquired is a comprehensive knowledge. “

The negative sense of experience and the constant openness to new possibilities lead to the dialectic, a question which Hegel elaborated, for which experience is a manifestation of skepticism, but an experience is rewritten according to the maxim of Heraclitus of Ephesus: “you can not pass The same river twice, the waters run over you.”