RSS
 

Arquivo para October, 2019

The crisis of Reason and Kant’s critique

23 Oct

What Kant has tried to solve in his Critique of Pure Reason, as its name implies, is that reason would not be enough, and thus I intend to make two critiques, namely the very idealism to which it proposes itself as a realist (although it seems contradictory, for the Kantians it is not), and the second is the Transcedental Deduction, the essence of their gnosiological method which confuses with another view of the transcendent, which is that of mystery, beyond the idealistic rational view.
What Kant called “transcendental realism” (of course there are several versions, including many that are contradictory to each other), was to conceive a critical distinction between epistemic conditions (it was Henri Allison who used this term) and are forms of systematization of knowledge with conditions. supposedly ontological, which are nonetheless ontic, for they are but possibilities of things themselves, and separate from the subject, is the idealistic transcendent.
Their refutation of idealism is viewed by the Kantians themselves as having: problematic, dogmatic, and empirical versions, which at bottom refer to the object of the “outside world,” that is, it contests every possibility of objective knowledge, and for this they hold or on the plane. empirical (clear through experience) or the transcendental plane, here as a resource for the subject to reach the plane of objects, in a clear separation between subjectivity and objectivity.
Kantian dualism remains in the problematic or dogmatic question, the former as a primacy of subjective awareness of perceptions and self-awareness of the domain of objectivity.
What characterizes Kant with his attempt to approach realism is in fact a transcendental dualist. It is because it ends by realizing the impossibility of knowing things as they are in themselves, and ends by defending isolation in subjectivity and a false interiority of presentations (making it present) and concluding, here, that it is dogmatic or skeptical that What we believe to be objective knowledge is actually a flow of perceptual impressions devoid of any objectivity, so the idealistic dualism of equidistant subject and object remains.
The way in which Kant will understand his “principled” relationship with self-awareness (in the Cartesian sense “I think”) and is with objective knowledge, must come along with his “deduction” which is essentially divergent with respect to his own. view of the Cartesian conception of the cogito, but both will not escape the conception of the ego, the transcendent self, or other analogies, which are well described in Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations.
The instrumental reason that much of the idealist discourse struggles with the object of knowledge and its corresponding cognitive subject, its cognitive transcendence, will always be tied to the essential dualism of the separation of subject and object, its consequences to daily life are clear.
So what we think of everyday as objective, concrete or any substitute in the relationship with things, and with the knowledge of them as a result, will always be in the “outer world” or the physical world, with which the relationship will always remain under false mystery, subjectivity or the perceptions of self-awareness, or even, is an experience of the subject.

See the video about idealism realistic em TEDx of the Daniel Wong:

 

The crisis of reason: technophobia

22 Oct

It was not Gerard Lebrun who coined the term technology, it was Jean-Pierre Séris (1941-1994) who among several issues in his text “La Technique” talks about a “strange transformation” that recalls the memories of Kantian questions: “What should I do? What can I do? What am I allowed to wait for? ”And that he ironically said what seems increasingly common:“ What should I ignore? What should I refrain from doing? ”(Lebrun apud Novaes, 1996, p. 471).
Speaking of the impact of the technique, it will not exemplify with the digital world, but bioethics, as a science of survival according to its inventor the American Potter in 1970, but well reminds Lebrun that in 1995 the International Bioethics Committee declared the genome “common heritage”. of humanity ”, saying that 20 years earlier the speech stigmatized this“ technique ”.
Lebrun says that the author “never takes sides ideologically”, and moves away from what he calls “passionate speeches”, does not adopt a “contrary to technique detractors” stance and reassures that “nothing in this book minimizes the dangers this or that risky technological intervention could bring the biosphere or animal life ”(idem, p. 471).
Clarifying that criticizing “was never synonymous with demonizing: in using the word criticism, neither Marx nor Kant preached a witch hunt” (Lebrun, p. 472), and was by the way another text in the same book of the “crisis of reason” we used in the previous post, the dissent, to disagree is to dialogue.
Lebrun clarifies that the use of the “technology” anglicism, “which erases the difference between things and the discourse about the thing … even more criticizable is the technoscience neologism, used to designate, very nebulously, a symbiosis between technique and technology. science, whose modalities, most of the time, are not careful to need ”(idem), using the concepts of Séris.
The fact that users are ignorant of using a technical device does not mean that there is an “intrinsic malignancy of the technique” (p. 472), or is it sufficient that Chernobyl, or a major blackout in New York or even a boy who can get secrets out of the Pentagon from his computer … which we use all the time (the Thaumata, as the Greeks used to refer to machines), become, at least potentially, unethical objects again ”(pages 472- 3).
It is fear that wants us to inculcate control of “technological progress,” the author cites Hans Jonas in his work “The Principle of Responsibility” is what makes JP Séris dissatisfied, but he also draws on Bernard Sève’s arguments that what Jonah calls “second-degree power,” distinguishing him from first-degree power “that which man exercises over nature through technique, that is, from man’s traditional image and power of intervention, in always controllable principle ”(page 473).
Remember that this power comes from Bacon who created a formula for this power in the first degree, and that Jonah will say that in unleashing the power in the second degree it will be necessary “unless the sentence is dictated by the disaster itself, it is a power over the power. power, ”
Then, is nothing other than the failure of the Baconian ideal, but who agrees not to subdue nature? thus the problem is not of technique but of the original domination of nature. We thus return to the initial questions “What should I do? What am I allowed to wait for? ”Jonas himself acknowledges that one cannot know the long-term effects of either technology or drugs, so“ will not undefined fear lean us against innovation, in favor of abstention? ”(Pag 476), I add, is it not fear that drives tyrants to power?
LEBRUN, G.Sobre a Tecnofobia (About technophobia). In: Novaes, Adauto. A crise da Razão: (The crisis of Reason). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1996.

 

The crisis of Reason: the dissent

21 Oct

Much has been written about it, but usually without leaving it, it’s like postmodernity, everyone shudders at the term, but any serious thinker knows we’re in the end of the modern, which will come later only crystal ball, but read The signs and understanding what changes we are experiencing can help a lot.
First I explain the prison we live, years ago when reading Horkheimer’s book the “Eclipse of Reason”, original from 1947, that Editora Unesp did a good translation of German, the author analyzes the technoscientific signs of modernity, but as instruments of More than those who can take dangerous and arduous tasks out of the hands of workers, the economic subjugation of course continues, which will lead to a mechanistic analysis of the digital universe, which is something other than Fordism and Toyotism.
In the philosophical aspect the work is between “objective reason” and “subjective reason”, which is basically the realization of human potentials as ends, with the development of practical instruments that enable such goals, the “means”, without escaping beyond rationalism. of ideas of progress.
It was another work that aroused my analysis beyond rationalism and development and progress at all costs, a compendium parading several national authors on “The Crisis of Reason”(Companhia das Letras, 1996), among several interesting essays highlighting the Jacques Rancière “The Dissent” and Gerard Lebrun’s “About Technophobia”, written in 1996.
Rancière makes a correct analysis based on the idea that “the currently dominant discourse that identifies political rationality to consensus and the consensus to the very principle of democracy” (Rancière apud Novaes, 1996, p. 367), and made his criticism pointing out three paradoxes.
The first paradox is soon after the fall of the former Soviet Union its opponents while celebrating its fall, resumed the “objective necessity”, ie the idea of resuming the productive forces of development in full swing, emptying the alternatives, thus established the “consensus” democracy as “the pure regime of economic necessity” (idem).
The second paradox is the mismatch of political wisdom, criticizes the discourse “which glorifies the actor, the individual who argues, who hires, who acts” (idem), the less things are to be discussed, “the more the ethics of the discussion are celebrated. , of communicative reason, as the foundation of politics ”(idem), is not what he says, but paradoxically when there is less ethics and less dialogue.
The third paradox is almost a prophecy, which Rancière calls “the national consensus of political parties and the advent of the great supranational spaces, reappear the brutal, more archaic forms of ethnic wars, exclusion, racism, xenophobia” (Rancière apud Novaes, 1996, pp. 368), it should be noted that the text is old, but this revival of the “national” was already evident.
His discourse is more complex as the text progresses, highlighting a passage that I consider important about consensus: “In its ordinary statement, consensual wisdom is presented as a thesis on the evolution of the politician summarized in the following idea: The old form of politics, that of conflict, has lapsed. The modern form is that of covenant, to deal between responsible partners…” (idem, p. 378), that is to say, it is not consensual, therefore, the dissent.
Ranci{ere, J.  (1996)O dissenso. In: NOVAES, A. A crise da Razão. Sâo Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1996.

(in Picture, between among several paintings in text, I chose the Divine Freedom of Goya).

 

For a spiritual ascesis

18 Oct

What we see beyond the crisis and cultural night, beyond a deep social crisis without a thought that catalyses the real forces of society that point to the future, is also a night of God, educator Martin Buber describes it as God’s Eclipse.
Buber wrote in his book: “I later built for myself the meaning of the word ‘mismatch’, through which was roughly described the failure of a true encounter between human beings. When, after another 20 years, I saw my mother, who had come to visit me, my wife, and my children from afar, I couldn’t look into her still astonishingly beautiful eyes without hearing the word “mismatch” somewhere as if it were. tell me.
I suppose that everything I have experienced over the course of my life about the authentic encounter has its first origin at that time in the gallery. ”(BUBER, 1991, p. 8). Thus revealing the true face of the “silence of God” of Judaism in which it has its roots, will be in another book the “I-Thou” where he will reveal an aspect of his asceticism which is “the encounter with the Other”, which for Buber more. than one person, your Tu has a divine essence, God inhabits the other.
These days there are two strong tendencies, and in both asceses there is in fact no spirituality beyond transcendence, or the activism that Byung Chul condemns as the “active vita” that leads to tiredness, or the idealistic subjectivism that can It seems to be religion but it is not, what it arouses is nothing but sentimentality, and can lead to “faithful” tears, not necessarily to God, if they do discover Him they must seek another true asceticism.
Thus it is possible that they will find God in one way or another, but there is no other way to remain in the faith, not of the blind but of those who have found a clearing, if indeed meditation and prayer are to remain, they are indispensable.
For those who have no faith, a good reading, separating passages and thoughts, living the moment as we wrote in the previous post, is fundamental, that is, also for reading can follow the rule of doing it without “gluttony”, try put the soul in silence, making a true “epoché”.
To those who believe always reflect that Jesus prayed, and asked his disciples to pray with him, and not to lose this practice, Jesus will tell the parable of the bad judge who does not want to attend the widow, but by his insistence and so that she does not. he curses, he answers, says the opening passage: “Jesus told the disciples a parable to show them the need to pray always, and never give up…”, which is in Luke 18: 1.
BUBER, Martin. (1995) Eclipse de Dios. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1995.

 

Beyond tiredness, the present moment

17 Oct

Several factors succeeded can put our lives in disharmony, even if they are involuntary, deaths, tragedies, misunderstandings, etc. It may seem like little or nothing can do to change them, a familiar formula that is meditation and / or prayer may seem. escape.
There are several cultural currents that think of an appeal or religious that associate them with the new age, but the society of tiredness has discovered contemplation, Byung Chul Han wrote about this, Sloterdijk his master warned of “a de-spirited ascesis”, both are not Christians, and both may encounter aspects that call co-immunity or even contemplation.
Gradually the troubled mind becomes clear again, choosing a thought or attitude to make the day better, seeking a way to calm and relax and overcome conflict situations.
Psychopolitics, and the resurgent attempt at control of people, must have a calm reaction to claim that this is not working without upsetting anyone around them and to prevent them from making the moment, to try to control the attitudes of those around them.
Finally, what we wrote yesterday, in the midst of turbulence, even war are possible moments of truce, of happiness if we live detached from what is past and no longer exists.
The number of growing social problems will require attitudes not to fall into some form of psychic illness, depression, discouragement, dejection, or heavier syndromes.
There is a profoundly positive side to this, some form of spirituality has become urgent, and so far there are dangers because there are few who promise what they do not deliver: peace of mind, for social peace will take time and the obstacles to be removed are huge, but we have to do it too.
When watching movies, books and culture, of course of high level, everything seems to point there, a resumption of Being, uniting objectivity and subjectivity, action and contemplation may at last cost, but something will have to reflect and leverage a more “human” future beyond. of the fragmentary humanism of the modern.

 

Burnout Society 2: Procrastination

16 Oct

Several references to Byung Chul Han’s book have already been posted here: The Society of Burnout the Pressure of Performance, the “Disciplinary Systems”, but especially the excess of activism leads many people to fall into borderline situations: mental tiredness, panic syndrome can reach Burnout’s syndrome, but only the simple “contemplative vita” solves, I don’t think so. 
One effect of when our life around us begins to become disorganized, it is impossible to always stay organized, is that the difficulty of knowing where to start can lead to procrastination. So both contemplation and action must come with some rationality that does not limit both of extending their limits in the positive sense, having passion in action, and having “emptiness” and breathing in contemplation, it is very common that neither are in fact well done.
One of the reasons that day to day can be driven to procrastination is because activity becomes totally routine and blaming the machines for this is entering the Fordist system, where activities and attitudes are routine and there is no creative way to do it. them.
Also creativity can be misleading, if we have to make a cake every day, of course it is possible to improve, but we must remember that our “cake” is well made in a way, so what is needed is to put a dose of satisfaction, of love and even greater care than before, for example, make it more hygienic, adjust sugar and salt, choose the best flour.
Contemplation too, I discovered after many years of reading, had the technique of making it paused and without “gluttony”, but I discovered very recently that I skipped “passages” that I didn’t like or disagree with, now I see that they are the most important for me they make me think.
I read these days, because I received the Nobel Prize of Literature a thought from Austrian writer Peter Handke: “A good thing, all of a sudden, forgetting the story, the past, stop feeling that present happiness is threatened by what it used to be.”
This means that I should not just focus on reading what I like, I must also leave the attachments and longings of the past, to live the present happiness, it is not just the hurts or joys we have from the past, we really need to cut and live the gift.
Thus we can organize the demand for what is disorganization, combat the abatement and procrastination of what we have to do, and finally do each action as a meditation, that is my addition to Byung Chul Han’s deep thinking, the action can be contemplative.

 

At exam or the butterfly flight

15 Oct

Byung Chul Han wrote in “Ar the Exam” talking about the influence of social media today on our thoughts and actions, which he calls psychopolitics, that the “gift of power reduces the improbability of accepting my selection of course, my decision willingness on the part of others ”(Chul Han, 2013, p. 17), which can lead to lack of reflection and swarm.

He wrote of this reflection that: “The word of power suddenly eliminates the noise that inflates. It produces a silence, namely, the space for action. ”(Idem). He also wrote, from reading Flusser’s “Digital Turn”: “that the human being is… an artist who designs alternative worlds. The difference between art and science disappears ”(p. 82).

It dislikes and is strange that Flusser’s “new anthropology” is grounded in the “Judeo-Christianity” that “sees in human being only dust” (Flusser apud Chul Han, p. 83) which I like and refer to. It is precisely in this line that he will say “There is no subject and no object: we can no longer be subjects, for there are no more objects to which we could be subject, and no hard core that could be subject to any object” (quoting Flusser from “Media Culture ”, P. 213s).

Dislikes and does not accept Flusser’s messianism and says that “it does not do justice to the current topology of the digital connection” (Chul Han, p. 83), but I like both and I fully accept Han’s idea that in the Digital Swarm we lose perspective of reflection, or how he likes contemplation for action, I counter the idea of ​​the butterfly.

The butterfly because of the butterfly effect of E. Lorenz, his famous thesis that “butterfly wing beating can influence the weather in Texas”, ie small individual or group actions can generate the reverse effect of the swarm, but this effect exists and became evident with the modern digital media that Flusser little knew, died in 1991 the Web was just born.

Flight of the erratic and disconcerting butterfly nevertheless has direction and meaning, its birth is also curious it is born dragging like a larva and when it leaves the cocoon it is prepared for flight, dresses in multiple colors and shapes, it is less noted that the bees, but also does her “work”, I would say she is the artist of nature, performative and colorful.

The comparison with the swarm is because, as Han wrote, again quoting Flusser: “we too are ‘digital computers’ with buzzing punctual possibilities,” but then makes a harsh criticism of Flusser, there is an alternate digital where the butterfly takes flight, the art meets contemplation, and the birth of the present “active” world without reflection is not from now, see our previous post about a 1909 writing.

 

 

Fear of machines is justified

14 Oct

In 1909, the British writer published the novel The Machine Stops ((England, Archibald Constable), spoke of a dark future in which we would be controlled and serviced by machines, so the fear is not of today.

Little or nothing is said about the educational gap around the world, the ignorance that classroom backgrounds have pushed ahead of social media and come to power in many countries, it is not unique to Brazil or the United States, nor is it even focused on the powers that be.

If there is social support, if there is social support, it means that there is a basis for this, and we analyze and explain this dystopian future.

Thus, it is not the exclusive problem of machines entering the industry, the so-called Revolution 4.0, but of an educational gap that can even be reversed using social media, artificial intelligence and the organization of information using technology, Web 3.0.

On the other side in 2018, Brand Smith and Harry Shum, respectively Microsoft President and Vice President (available in PDF The Future Computed: Artificial Intelligence and Its Role in Society) who said while sleeping, the virtual assistant, be it Cortana, Siri or Alexa Connected to other virtual devices in a “smart home” ensures that when you wake up there will be a breakfast to your liking, is still imaginary, as in general the devices and environments change.

I mention the case of a mouse designed for engineering and architecture that took the place of the promised light pen, which seemed to be the most suitable device for personal computers, also not promised in many futuristic essays.

Another case is the Semantic Web, which with users’ adherence to Web 2.0 (blogs, twitters, websites), has led to a scenario of growing misinformation, but that Web 3.0 could reverse the course.

We can and will be ready for a Web 4.0 with artificial intelligence helping to filter and organize information in the very near future, what relationship may with intelligent machines the holographic future with avatars and social multi-presence is uncertain but will come.

It is more worthwhile to think about preventing the dangers and looking forward with hope, to imagine that it is possible to block or end an initiated stage of technological development.

There are dangers, yes, there have always been, but the danger of a new world war is more related to great world interests than machines, of course they can and are already used by them.

In 2011 a documentary about Machine Stops was made and it talked about war, not about machines controlling men, but about human warfare.

 

 

 

 

Gratitude or indifference

11 Oct

The attitude of gratitude can lead to gratitude, a virtuous way in which gratitude is taken socially and becomes a value of people, groups or cultures, but what the opposite effect.
The absence of gratitude can gradually lead to the breaking of social ties, little or no recognition leads people who do not feel valued to seek other groups and people.
Of course, a person or group who has already understood gratitude, that is, is already a virtuous circle from which can only escape by violent attitudes or some anomalous fact that interferes with the circle, even without recognition will continue to exercise gratitude for having become value.
But what we see in many Western societies and cultures, especially in the West, is a cooling of social relations because of the lack of recognition and gratitude, which leads to a decrease in daily life and cordiality, and a circle of Relationship cooling begins to evolve.
It is necessary for a group, even a small group, to react with resilience, with gratitude being a value that leads to collaboration, cordiality and solidarity.
The tendency is for more people to react to this new spirit, and this leads to more people seek friendliness.
There are analyzes that say acts of free collaboration seek a “form” of recognition, for example, voluntary services on social networks, clarifying that this does not depend on media although they can be used, this analysis is incomplete because existing “services” have forms such as installing software or environments, maintaining and increasing the prestige of the person or company.
It is also gratitude, this has been posted here before, even with high remuneration if done only by obligation there is no system of gratitude, and if done without remuneration but with little appreciation, there is also no gratitude.
In Christian cosmology, gratitude is always a value, but gratitude is one that is reinforced by faith, that is, belief in a superior force or being that accelerates and collaboration with the inclusion of gratitude, is what counts the healing of the ten lepers. when only one came back to say thank you.
In the biblical passage Jesus to the 10 lepers who ask for compassion with them, he sends himself to the priest and halfway through are healed, but only one has gratitude, perhaps the others were grateful, but did not return to a proactive attitude of gratitude. Then Jesus says Luke 17: 17-19: “Were not ten healed? And the other nine, where are they? 18Have none returned to give glory to God but this stranger? ”And he said to him,“ Arise and go! Your faith has saved you. ”

 

Common sense and gratitude

10 Oct

The common sense from which Popper wrote is not the simple objectivity or subjectivity developed by idealist philosophy, or the intersubjectivity that connects the subjectivity of individuals or discourses, is the possibility of attaining knowledge of things, situations and people that leads to knowledge. in a way of knowing that they have cultural, social or even beliefs that lead them to proactive attitudes.
So you take acts done in isolation into a virtuous circle of attitudes, of course Popper did not speak of gratitude, but Marcel Mauss wrote in the 1920s the theory of giving, or the “gift” of simply rewarding or rewarding positive attitudes, But there is no problem in having remuneration, this is its idealistic aspect, even in this case there may be gratuity if made as a gift to those who receive the service.
What leads to gratitude rather than reward is how the word etymological origin is the notion of gratuitousness that must accompany even those acts for which there is just compensation, without being an instrumentalized or corrupting form of that act.
Thus collaboration, cooperation and even totally free actions that may involve values, such as paid wages, which should be thought of as acts of brotherhood and compassion as those involved in that act.
Just as continuous acts lead to an attitude, so continuous gratitude can lead to gratitude, can and should not because there is a difference in both cases that it is the fact that if it does not become an act and a social gratitude, even though attitude and gratitude can getting lost and leading to discontinuity of acts and gratitude, this is a problem in certain cultures.