Arquivo para November, 2019

The future has arrived but has not started

29 Nov

The extreme division of society that seems to put in check not only civilization and the civilizing process, there are several readings for this including apocalyptic, is actually a time that can be called eschatological, and it presupposes an advent.
In the Christian liturgy it means the end times, and the advent of Jesus’ second coming, in a broader worldview means that it is possible to think that the whole planet can go through a new process of civilizing end and an advent.
Will come a future that we do not think, or that thought in crisis was unable to unveil, the change of social bases for a new process depends and is correlated to a new way of thinking what is civilizing process, what is development and what and culture.
The concept of civilizational process explored by renowned sociologists such as Bauman and Norbert Elias, but almost the majority can be said to define what goes from a simpler civilization and social organization to a more complex one, for example tribal. to the Republican, however, they conceal prejudice and a neo-colonialist view.
To consider millenary societies, not only Western and Eastern, but also indigenous and African, while noting the roots of the Arab world, is in fact the only possibility of looking at the world as a whole and reconsidering development and culture.
What is incomprehensible and little analyzed in the current process, sometimes denounced, but without going to the bottom of the analysis of the anthropological and social issues of the themes, is to look at the migratory processes that mix people while unveiling their cultures.
These cultures are not surfacing now, they exist and they are millennial, what happened in the process considered civilizing, which in fact was colonizing and acculturating, was superimposing what until then was considered more advanced forgetting or dominating the pre-existing cultures.
We will continue to have people thrown and dying overboard, first to make the continental conquests and now to reverse the process by integrating cultures into distinct civilizing processes, but the polarization around development and the vector is questionable.
No two perspectives are open, but tens or maybe hundreds if we consider the process of fusion and at the same time separation between cultures, cathedrals living with synagogues and mosques, Buddhist temples around the world, the religious sense here just to speak of a strong aspect. of culture, but there are certainly many others: education, food, family structure and taboos, and the West does not escape this analysis.
What we have at an end of time, besides a strong catalysis whose genesis are autocratic wars, of all kinds not only those that use weapons, that make people and cultures move around the planet, the sociological vision of civilizing process does not reach these details, It is elitist.
What people and nations expect from the future has little or nothing to do with idealistic theoretical speculations, it has to do with the dynamics of the contemporary world, and in it there is already a genesis of a new world, a homeland-world as Edgar Morin wants.


The future and the changes

28 Nov

When anything is suddenly moving or changing, it generates instability, a sense of discomfort, and even anguish at first, complaining that things are out of place is seemingly clever but conservative and futile reasoning.
The current crisis is far from being just an economic crisis, because it is not only this that is changing, there are new values that emerge and there are old ones that should not be abandoned, the new ones are the acceptance of diversity and the fact that we are running out of things. Energy sources on the planet.
The former is more delicate to talk about, but it is necessary, as Edgar Morin states, to go beyond the economic, the basis of Western thinking that idealism and empiricism are crumbling and are showing signs of exhaustion, Western society and its “developmental” base.
In crisis, what is even more complicated are the millennial cultures that are profoundly different and must dialogue.
The powerlessness of knowing what happens we enter into easy discourses on a fundamentally religious or ideological basis, but they will not be a solution if the basis of these thoughts does not change, we need to dialogue and have openness to different cultures and cognitive structures. Another basis of the crisis is the bureaucratization of public and private structures, we are bombarded by the needs of the state and companies that are not the real human needs. The ecological crisis is also serious no more animals, birds and insects, pesticides kill the life forms that make up the ecosystem, and their imbalance will harm future generations.
The old thinking is disappointed and powerless, they give the future to the young because they have no answers, have a hard time listening and helping them to separate the good from the bad.
As all this the future will come with changes that must be courageous, but in dialogue with tradition, this is how great currents of thought and great cultures have emerged, which isolates is no better because it is retaining certain values, deteriorates into prejudice and illusions.
Looking at the new generations that has enough energy for change, but without warning them of the dangers of the old illusions we had, is better than having them embark on them.
Edgar Morin gave a presentation on these future dilemmas and the crises we are experiencing: 


Other people’s dialogues and peace

27 Nov

The rapid pace of change we are experiencing in various fields of social life is the subject of apocalyptic and ufanists, the former say that everything is lost and the latter that no change has already happened, curiously this discourse unites technophobes and technophiles.
Perhaps technological change has something to do with all this reality, but even simplistic analysis of history notes that problems such as consumerism, individualism, nihilism, and totalitarian tendencies date back at least a century, and thus from a time when technology , especially digital, was still distant and idealized.
The second fact of the reality that is denied is polarization, there are also two very serious misconceptions in these analyzes, the denial of polarization seen with a process of “politicization” that is just the opposite, and the negation of alternatives, dramatically justifying the scenario without seeing alternatives other than confrontation.
For the two alternatives is the biblical passage (1 Thes. 5: 3). “When men say,” Peace and safety! Then destruction will come upon them suddenly, as pains upon a pregnant woman, “but the question is, would there be other alternatives, of course it is, and the child will be born. 
So the real war is not the one that explodes after it has already been brewed by the opposite sides, but the one that hides behind the discourses of “peace”, of “open dialogues”, because the convicted are different from those who have a clear position, are able to hear the opposite.
We even talk about Popper’s method of falsifiability, one of the great names in the philosophy of science, we still need to talk about the intransigence of the ‘enlightened’, the owners of the truth.
Even though I have read some relevant author, or seen a video of media outlets parading like wise, full of advice (and poisons) to give “simple” but dangerous solutions, they often distil the venom from their positions and convictions, but as twisted. only.
They will say to those who disagree: “arrogant”, “unfriendly” or any excuse for their lack of dialogue and openness, but it is precisely these who ferment and polarize radical groups.
Someone who wants to dialogue will always be subject to some isolation in the climate created, but only there can be solutions, paths and unsought paths to conflict.

Nenhum Comentário

Postado em


Distant Dialogues

26 Nov

We have stressed in several posts the need for dialogue before it is too late, I quote from a post in which I remember Plato’s Ballet and Phaedrus are dialogues, and the Platonic school itself was grounded in dialogue.

And another post that I remember since Nietsche, with the category will to power, passing through Foucault with biopower, until Byung Chull Han’s recent essay on psychopolitics, the subject is always important and is related to dialogue. 

The polarization in Latin America has reached its peak, now the peaceful and quiet Uruguay has divided into an election that we will only know the result on the 29th, the problem is that there is already a counting of votes and the possibility of conflicts is not out of the question.

Political analysis, often biased, there are rare cases of exempt analysis, since most distort the facts to say that the other side is authoritarian or autocratic, a word I prefer because even people and groups that talk about dialogue have become ego-focused (personal or group).

The reference author is not only of individuals, when the self is fragile, the problem is when she is in a group and makes everyone “convinced” of this or that position, the dialogue dies and the will for power grows, for Nietzsche she is intrinsic to man, for those who do not dialogue.

Also in the literature there is talk of dialogue between tradition and change, it is necessary to analyze the discourse of tradition to understand vectors that indicate paths for the future, until Marx did this was to read Adam Smith and Ricardo who were conservative economists, although one can criticize you today.

What leads to radicalism beyond the absence of dialogue, or its even more polarizing masking, all authoritarians speak of democracy, is the absence of analysis and listening to different and deeper points of view, superficiality and ignorance are preferred. , easy way that nevertheless leads to polarization and ultimately to conflict.

There is a lack of personal and group magnitudes, recognition of values ​​that the other side may have, in essence reigns the Manichaeism and superficiality of analysis.





Liquid thinking and hope

25 Nov

Liquid thinking is the result of uncritical reading by various authors, and especially Bauman, so I use this concept, since its readers generally read (if they read it) their main book, which is Liquid Modernity, could read beyond it. e.g. Bruno Latour.
They are precisely the result of what they criticize, because superficial or insufficient, they take concepts and hasty formulations of what should be taken seriously, such as what modernity really is, Latour explains a little, who were the thinkers, the politicians? and social groups that have brought modernity to this dramatic moment, it is this structural or particular moment.
It answers little profound questions: idealism, neologicism and existential crisis (suicide is in many places already an endemic problem today), are on the surface of creating new concepts without at the same time deepening them, the concept of liquid serves well. this.
The point is to analyze why this crisis has returned to its starting point of the “civilizing process” which is nationalism and the strengthening of conservative social forces, liquidity considers it a process in which the most “primitive” and “tribal” societies are the late part of this.
Thus confused with the more conservative forces of society, while seeking alliances and supportive forces in the transforming forces of society, they consider “wasted lives” all those personal humblings that perform essential social functions, only earn little or live on the periphery, look at it. socially “invisible” as “wasted”.
Finally their thinking is not universal, they may use beliefs, dogmas or even prejudices that they seek to hide, but which essentially is proper to a thought “within the walls”, although it is thought or intended to be outside them, is an intellectual wall of depth.
Because it is shallow, it tends to be useless or authoritarian, what it calls dialogue is monocratic discourse or any questioning or conversation allowed.
The hope that society has for a freer and more democratic future, fairer and without false promises, a safe way forward will succumb to the lack of solidity and maturity of this kind of conservative thinking, although it is ashamed of it.


Counterfeiting and beliefs

22 Nov

For Popper, to support the objective world, he hoped to provoke what he called “philosophers of belief” (Popper, 1972, p. 109), namely “Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, or Russell are interested in our subjective beliefs. in its basis of origin ”and thus placed it in its third world (beyond the physical and cognitive) as“ the world of objective content of thought, especially of scientific and poetic thinking and of works of art ”(Popper, 1972, p. 108). ), but his worldview is expressed in the extent of his work, and this is his beyond.
What involves beliefs is not only religious acts, but the fixation on dogmas, or rather the construction of “objective content of thought” that seems to give us certainty where it is only apparent, and thus we fall into the easy path of “induction”. as Hume wanted.
The falsifiability method is not just a way of staying in the critique of science, but it is first of all to point out that many beliefs are “beliefs,” and beliefs themselves can help the human worldview if they understand that they should not be limited. purely to dogmas, I make a single argument using Popper… without criticism there would be no human progress.
These are times of disbelief, and unfortunately it strikes even the most dear to us, human life, there is little appreciation and little discomfort for the vulnerability of life, and beyond human contempt for nature and the planet seems to be. common voice.
But everything is a mark of an end of the epoch, and thought can and should play a very important role in a turn of the epoch, and in the matter of science falsifiability, responsible criticism is clear, and transdisciplinarity can be an essential exercise, yet. little done.
Criticism can be misunderstood, I see many “inductive” thoughts that thinking is not good, if we don’t think and just let the waves go we will go to uncertain destinations.
However, to think is necessary method, and what should be obvious but is not, to be lover of the truth beyond our convictions, to respect and to hear the Other with openness, and to know to go beyond. One phrase said in the revolutionary walls of the Sorbonne of Paris: “our ears have walls, our walls have ears”, it is necessary to superior several types of authoritarianism, and the most serious of all, the non-acceptance of the Other, which is not what we idealized, beyond, simply Other.
Evangelist Luke is the one who essentially follows the “way” of Jesus, so I would say in scientific or hermeneutic terms, the one who gives us “the method of Jesus”, the way in which he narrates his end near his death on the cross is narrated in this perspective.
In Lc 23,40-43, Jesus conducts the dialogue with the two thieves, would say that it is his “falsifiability” to speak of life near his death and in dialogue with two thieves, one mocking and the other asking that he be in his kingdom.
To those who believe the only saint with confirmation of Jesus is a thief (Lk 23:43): “You will still be with me in paradise today,” ironically the only one confirmed by Jesus, there was no other.
This near-death thief could see further: “Remember me in your reign.”
POPPER, k. (1975) Conhecimento Objetivo (Objective Knowledge), Ed. University of São Paulo (Brazilian edition), 1975 (original 1972).


Common sense and critical science

21 Nov

It may seem that Popper’s critique of Hume, and directly in some books or directly in others as well as Kant, is only a theoretical problem, but there is something profound about addressing the real question about irrationality or ignorance beyond induction: the common sense.
Popper states in the preface to the English edition of Objective Knowledge (1972) (brazilian edition 1975): “I am a great admirer of common sense, which I claim is essentially self-critical”.
But if I am willing to uphold the essential truth of common sense realism to the end, I regard the common sense theory of knowledge as a subjectivist blunder. ”(Popper, 1975, p. 7).
After making a “tabular” summary of several common sense theory thinkers, he concludes that the attempt to maintain “common sense theory as an integral whole – realism plus common sense epistemology – tends to crumble… and the latter can be rejected. and replaced by an objective theory that uses the former. ”(Popper, 1975, p. 107).
Despite Plato and Hegel’s criticism, his lectures “A theory of the Platonic world” or “A theory of the objective spirit,” as the titles themselves confer, are the dialogues made with these theories, which will define what he calls the ´third world´”, it is in Popper’s most general view.
Although he says he uses “world” and “universe” without taking words seriously, his worldview or worldview is serious indeed, when we read that the other two worlds are:
“the first, the world of physical objects or material states: second, the world of states of consciousness or mental states, or perhaps of behavioral dispositions to act, and third, the world of objective content of thought, especially of scientific and poetic thinking and of works of art” (Popper, 1975, p. 108), which reveals influences but also their originality.
It admits the influences of Plato, Hegel and include that of Bolzano (had a theory of the universe as propositions and truths), and in the end admits the influence of “Frege’s universe of objective content of thought” (Popper, idem).
Different because it says what your thinking experiences are, the first surprising for the contemporary world is the experience that “all machines and equipment are destitute… but libraries and our ability to learn from them survive.
Clearly, after much suffering, our world can continue to walk ”(pp. 109-110). In the second as before, experience that machines and equipment are destitute: “as well as our subjective learning, including our knowledge of machines and equipment and how to use them.
But this time, all libraries have also been destitute, so our ability to learn from books becomes useless. ”(P. 110).
Italics are from the original. In stating experience as “subjective learning”, where even books are useless, it is contrary to Frege’s own thinking which quotes on the following page: “By thought I mean not the subjective act of thinking, but its objective content…” (Frege in Popper, 1975, p. 111).
It will say using the Oxford dictionary that knowledge is “being aware or informed,” but the information here is like books and not subjective / ontological information.

POPPER, K. (1975) Conhecimento Objetivo, Editora Universidade de São Paulo, 1975. (original english version 1972).


Popper’s solution to empiricism

20 Nov

Recognizing as important the division between the logical and psychological problem, Popper’s solution to Hume’s induction was to reformulate HL (logical) by replacing it with ‘test assertions’, ‘basic assertions’ or ‘observation’, and will create two claims L1 and L2 (Popper, 1975, p. 18).

L1 is the claim that a universal explanatory theory would be true for “empirical reasons”, assuming Popper’s test and observation assertions, and his answer is no. L2 is the claim extending L1 and admitting the hypotheses that a universal explanatory theory can be either true or false for “empirical reasons” and in this case its answer is positive.

But Popper will recall that Hume has also proposed competing theories, that is, whose formulations do not agree, and the problem of choosing between various theories requires a new L3, suggesting a third claim of the problem of induction.

L3 is may a “preference” (author’s emphasis) with respect to truth or falsity, for some universal theories in competition with another, be justified for “empirical reasons”, yes but the author himself adds “if we are lucky” ( page 19), and I add there may be mysterious theory, which is not yet known and may come to light, this is the ontological reason, and is related to Being.

The author points out that the negation of L1 must be viewed as “all laws or theory as hypothetical or conjectural, that is, as assumptions” (Popper, 1972, p. 20). Of course (psychological) HPS is related to this, but Popper’s complementary solution will come in the formulation of the worlds, but before this it goes a long way in science.

In this way I point out his disagreement with Gilbert Ryle who states that certain hypotheses, in Popper’s case, means “proposition… which only conjectures to be true” (page 20), and that for Hyle there are “firm” propositions and these “are called laws, not hypotheses ”.

This was the opinion of many when Popper wrote Logic of Scientific Research (1959) in which he states that the logic of induction often leads “from singular (… or particular) statements, such as descriptions of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories.” (Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Research, 1972, p. 27).

There is always a “logical” leap from private to universal, but the most serious problem in postmodernity is that “general” or universal theories are no longer seen as such. Induction is an important problem because it is through it that we prove our “theories” that justify our “beliefs”, but often they are beliefs and induction is purposeful, we can, for example, find confirmations of our political view and when there are not, We say you see it is linked to harmful ideologies, there is no logical argument, but only induction.

Thus the evidence confirming a particular theory should not be taken into account, unless the test is genuine of this theory, as it can be said as in phenomenology, the object has its own method, but of course this is different from Karl’s theory of falsificationism.

Popper The criterion of the scientific status (Popper uses instead of law) of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability or testability, so the problem of narrative in science is rejected.

POPPER, K. (1975) Conhecimento Objetivo, Editora Universidade de São Paulo, 1975 (original english edition 1972). 



Popper and the induction

19 Nov

Idealism had a complement without which the “world of ideas” would become only metaphysical, just what it thought it denied, its complement was empiricism, and that is the question now.

While idealism will find its climax in Hegel, modern materialist theories are also Hegelian, the issue of empiricism is more recent and can be said unresolved, at least at the theoretical level, Popper said on this subject: “The formulations that have now become traditional are historically very recent in date: they spring from Hume’s critique of induction and its impact on the common sense theory of knowledge” (Popper, 1972, p. 14), he goes on. quote Bertrand Russell, but there were others.

Popper summarizes Hume’s proposal on two levels, one that will use the acronym HL (Logical Problem) and one that will use the acronym HPS (Psychological Problem), the first part of repeated problems that we experiment with and the second that wise people “believe”. what examples of you without experience will conform to those of you who have experience… that is, do we have expectations in which we place great confidence? ” (Popper, 1972, p. 15) and will say that this comes from habits.

Popper says that Hume’s distinction is “of the utmost importance” between the logical problem of the psychological problem because it equates “valid inference processes” but sees it as “rational mental processes” (Popper, 1972, p. 17), in fact they are subjective and psychological, like “belief”.

Popper thus treats the logical problem, as it is in philosophy and the exact sciences (the term nature is used, which I prefer to differentiate), it is applied to HL (logical) and then goes to HPS.]

The psychological problem led Popper to criticize Hume’s system, what he calls the principle of transference, which is true for logic will also be true for psychology, which is undoubtedly “a somewhat bold conjecture in the psychology of cognition or thought processes.”(idem).

With his principle of transference Popper can present his main result which is, “Hume being certain that there is no repetition induction in logic, by the principle of transference, there can be no such thing in psychology (or scientific method or history). of science): the idea of ​​repetition induction must be the product of error… repetition induction does not exist.”(Popper, 1972, p. 18).

One can explore the consequences of empiricism beyond science, as in politics (The Open Society), but in the scientific method using Popper’s argument this will be definitive, empiricism is irrational. Karl Popper’s Trinity College (Oxford) interview with Sir Anthony Quinton illustrates this extension of his thinking in philosophy and politics:




Science and Karl Popper

18 Nov

One of the greatest contributions to the thinking of science remains little known, one of the great masters of the philosophy of science of our time Karl Popper (1902-1994), though quoted and influencing virtually every area of ​​human knowledge, is still poorly read. Born in Vienna, he emigrated to New Zealand and after the end of the war became a teaching assistant at the London School of the Economics in scientific method and became a teacher in 1949.

Received direct influence from the Vienna circle having worked on his doctorate with Moritz Schlick, Circle coordinator, with the thesis Zur Methodenfrage der Denkpsychologie (On the question of the method of psychological thinking), then wrote his work in German, which would have an English edition. rewritten in 1959, which modified some points. Among the changed points is the question of method: “an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry that results from the logical form of universal statements.

For they are never derivable from singular statements, but may be contradicted by singular statements “(page 19 of the English edition). He was a supporter communism but became adept at the liberal ideas of Ludwig Von Misses and F. Hayek, wrote in 1945 the book “Open society and its enemies”, showing the dangers of totalitarianism and in its democratic ideas the state should have limited and controlled power.

This book, too, was later revised in 1966, when it was published the 4th. edition.

He has published several books, including (books published in Portuguese), objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach (ed. Itatiaia, 1972, ed. USP, 1975), The Misery of Historicism (Cultrix, 1980), Critical Rationalism in Politics (Don Quixote, 1987), Open Society, Open Universe (1987), The Open Universe – Arguments for Indeterminism (Don Quixote, 1988), The Myth of Context. Lisbon: Issues 70, 1999) and The World of Parmenides: Pre-Socratic Enlightenment (ed. UNESP, 2014).

He was opposed to Bertrand Russell of the scientific idea of ​​induction from Hume’s empiricism, but he also opposed justificationism, which opposes the idea of ​​reason to the theory of reason, and as Bartley he was “the first unjustified philosophy. of criticism in the history of philosophy”.

His scientific method is in favor of falsificationism, according to which a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proved, but can be falsified, which means it must have decisive experiments, although not every theory can have them.

Received the Kyoto Prize, a kind of Japanese Nobel Prize, but in distinct areas of the Nobel Prize, is seen as a contribution to the work of humanity and its areas are: advanced technology, basic science, art and philosophy, the prize itself shows Japanese education. more open than the western, Karl Popper was awarded in 1992 in the field of philosophy.

Here’s the video of your political vision in a documentary called Philosophy against False Prophets: