Arquivo para February, 2020
Tradition and the truth of becoming
14
Feb
Much of what is preached and lived in our day is tradition, here not seen as the thought that built the history of humanity, but only repetitive and
apparently “stable” customs and habits that time has taken charge of changing.
This is how the religion that should build a true asceticism of becoming, or becoming, builds prejudiced and traditionalist ties that hinder the progress of humanity.
It is not by chance that they fought Giordano Bruno and Galileu Galilei, their works represented a change in the worldview, in this case a cosmological view, but the world view means, above all, a broad view of the phenomena and of life.
The world does not change because thinkers who should aim for the future show only their fears, their arrogance fixed in concepts of tradition and their lack of creativity.
In a passage where Jesus and his disciples ate spikes with their hands and traditionalists demanded compliance with the law of washing hands, the Master shows that the words of these men did not match their attitudes.
Jesus says in Mark’s biblical passage (Mark 7: 6-8): “Isaiah prophesied about you, hypocrites, as it is written:‘ This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. There is no use in the worship they give me, because the doctrines they teach are human precepts. You abandon the commandment of God to follow the tradition of men ”.
It is in this sense that the following paragraph says (Mk 6, 9): “They know very well how to change the commandments to follow the tradition”, and this is also the sense that the evangelist Matthew says (Mt 5, 20) : “If your righteousness is no greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the king of heaven”, this is the essence of Christian morality that is well observed is universal.
Morality and its diverse concepts
13
Feb
We think of morals as moralism, Puritanism or “certain” Christian morals, as a whole it involves love and so it also involves dialogue, but morality is
even more confused because it mixes with Kantian idealistic morals and state morals, the so-called “justice”.
Hellenic morality, of classical antiquity, is a fusion of Greek morality when it spreads through Asia Minor and the Mediterranean will meet the Roman “laws”, which is a nascent state morality, but separates from it as a form of stoicism.
This period was called by the German historian Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884) for the first time Hellenic, and include among the thinkers Plotinus, Cicero, Zeno and Epicurus, they keep geometric and astronomical notions that merge with moral ideas, we know great phrases of this period, but not thought like Droysen did.
It can be synthesized in two currents, moral individualism or “inner” morality and Plotinus neoplatonism, which is similar to the thought of Augustine of Hippo, but different in terms of teleological morality, for Augustine, evil is the absence of good, not the opposite.
Kantian morality is essentially individualistic, “acts in such a way as to be a model for others” while state morality will be the rules that managed the social contract (previous post), Christian morality as current since the time of Jesus can be pharisaic and traditionalist (what is called fundamentalist), in essence it should be universal.
Loving everyone, including enemies, is not what most religious moralists do, their essence is still the “fight against evil” and not their overcoming through love and never hate.
In-formation and modern state
12
Feb
It is impossible to think about the modern state, without thinking about its laws and the social contract that is established from them, and it is not by chance that they arise after the Gutenberg press (and the book).
One can think in an equally naive way that this is just theory, it is easy to demonstrate 
that it is not the form of action of the polis, it is impossible to think without the Greek polis, and the thoughts ranging from the pre-Socratic to the modern contractualists : Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and the Swiss (he was not French) Jean Jacques Rousseau.
The in-formation of the modern state comes from the basic idea of these thinkers is that the relationship between rulers and governments must be established in the form of a contract, and that they argue in the background is that man is the wolf of man Thomas Hobbes, man is determined by the social relationship John Locke, this is born good and the environment shapes it, and man is a good savage that the environment has corrupted, Rousseau’s thought.
What some contemporary authors will say is that these forms, or these rules of social domination, have collapsed, whether due to the emancipation of the spectator as advocated by Jacques Rancière, or due to the failure of the rules of the human park as explored by Peter Sloterdijk, of course there are others possible interpretations, like the conservative in fashion, resume the solid state.
The form of the in-formation
11
Feb
Western philosophy was built along a path that was not necessarily the only 
one available, so there is neither determinism nor thought and consequently neither history, this because of the fact that some categories were privileged over others.
Although it was possible to think of a single model of thought, socially it is impossible to think by a single method or a single path, this may seem contradictory to the previous thought, but it does not mean that in the midst of a set of thoughts and categories from certain times it was done for several reasons, including political, economic and cultural, the option for certain forms of thought was made.
The form of information is eveloped thus from the thoughts and visions of the world that influenced Western culture.
The aim of this post is not to exhaust this thought, but to travel with the help of some special readers, such as Aristotle and Plato, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Imanuel Kant, David Hume, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger , Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Emanuel Lévinas, Peter Sloterdijk, Byung Chull Han, just to name a few that I consider fundamental, but without claiming to exhaust the thought of any of them.
It is possible by analyzing the penetration of these thinkers in daily life as well as in the structural ones of governments, states and world policies, how these influences happened and happen to determine our thinking, although we can naively imagine that what we think is original, or because of pragmatism that what exists is practical life and the need.
Moreover, even though they deny these are forms of thought linked to certain forms of thought, such as empiricism, skepticism and pragmatism.
Thus, through culture, education and, mainly, forms of social intervention by means of communication and advertising, there is an action-form of implanting these ideas within society and once constituted as an organized set of knowledge (an episteme) to implant in the within society, in-formation, that is, to implant ideas within society.
From Socrates, who in essence wanted to “instruct” men, through Plato and Aristoteles, to the modern state, citizens’ form of action through information is how ideas are formed and disseminated in the social fabric, specialy in XIX century, in XX there were any changes.
The Oscar of the Parasite
10
Feb
I was convinced that the Academy would give this year the Oscar to the Joker, although
it never admits for political reasons, it seems that some foundation (or several) lost has made us return to nationalist and authoritarian values that generally lead to autocracies and dictatorships .
Differentiating autocracy differs from dictatorship, when power (Kratos) is exercise by itself (self) means power by power, while dictatorship is the denial of democracy, and what emerged in the contemporary world is a mixture of the two people, in free elections .
The award-winning Joker is a good image, it is reasonable to give the Oscar for best actor, although the character is a pathological mixture of mean ingredients, with the nomination of 14 categories was already a sign of a certain “veneration” for the film, that not is to resulted.
I remember that The Wicked (1950) and Titanic, in addition to the recent La la Land had 14 nominations.
Two awards given, either by exclusively artistic criterion (forgetting ethics and politics), would be only an actor but also won more 2 categories.
I had decided not to comment, but the nomination of Dois Papas (by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles) and the controversial documentary Democracy in vertigo, about what I say here, went from the opposite hand of the Joker, Two Popes received the consolation prize for adapted script.
I leave my protest, no doubt 1917 (3 figurines) has great qualities, who watched Parasite (won 4) the film almost hypnotizes us and Once upon a time in Hollywood (3 figurines) deserved more, I am surprise for better actress Renée Zellweger.
Last as animation the statuette went to Toy Stories which I think is deserved.
Make the difference
07
Feb
Making a difference does not and therefore lose 
identity, only the idealistic concept of self-identity sees it that way, that is why we created a world of sameness in which everything is very similar, before being an element of culture it was an element of thought, the imperative Kantian categorical: “act in such a way as to be a model for others”.
Then the cultural industry, the mass media radio and television developed this, created standards of beauty, consumption and even morality, the morality of the state before being an individual morality, it is a “collective” morality of values and customs, that do not mean an ethics and a “solid” identity, this includes the love of homeland symbols and patrimonial values.
Making a difference does mean having an identity with an ethical and moral principle, which includes beliefs and even behavior (see previous post), but which allows dialogue and cultural customs different from ours, so that you can indicate to others a behavior and an action capable of including them and showing human and social dignity thus influencing culturally by showing the “difference” of true and eternal values that benefit the whole society.
True cultures and philosophies must encourage this, they must make a difference not in order to impose opinions and customs, but in a way that includes the Other, that is why it never accompanies the superior air, arrogance and the idea that what is different is wrong, this is Manichaeism and never love.
The Bible idea that the culture of Love should make a difference, that is to say “salt and yeast”, brings together the idea that to make a difference it takes little, but the salt and yeast cannot be spoiled because the effect on the food will not be noticed.
The true Christian culture establishes in Matthew (Mt 5:13): “You are the salt of the earth. Now, if the salt becomes tasteless, how will we salt it? It will serve no more than to be trampled on by men and to be thrown away. ”
Identity as self-assertion, as arrogance is nothing but tasteless salt
Identity and making a difference
06
Feb
Identity and difference seem contradictory, we
have already stated that the problem is not logical, but onto-logical, this relative to Being, and in modern ontology the contradiction is possible and therefore non-Being can also be, and this gives rise to Becoming , breaking static barriers.
The capacity and integrity of the Being means that we know ourselves as we are, we understand our worldview and the limitations it has, even the most advanced science has limits, absolute knowledge is possible with a true spirituality, where the soul is.
We improperly say that where the heart is, our desires, desires and projections about who we are, most illnesses, especially psychological ones, come from these projections when they are false, unreal or real experiences that hurt us.
The non-Being means that we understand what we are and are prepared to not be, to receive the Other, the different and the cultural and political diversity of the world, the radicalism of defending one’s own identity and being too attached to the worldview , we have already said it is not identity, but self-identity, many who criticize individualism worship self-identity.
Not being is the openness to the other to dialogue, from where the becoming comes from necessarily passes through a non-Being, much of the extremism of the current world, with bad reflexes in politics is the exercise of the cult of “identity” collectively, false collectives and false “Nodes” that are closed and authoritarian structures.
Within this radicalism there is a seed of the Other, of the acceptance of difference and true spirituality, it is necessary that this “exacerbated” identity is open to the different, or contradictory and mainly changes its form of “thought”, and its closed “culture”.
From thinking, two tendencies emerge: simplism, which reinforces self-identity and complexity, as proposed by Edgar Morin, which facilitates and expands the vision of the world and of Being
American primaries
05
Feb
After a technological shame, curious that this
happens in the USA and here the polls doubt, the first results come out with 62%, even more curious is the counting system because although Bernie Sanders leads.
In fact a candidate to the left, the results even yesterday night were: Pete Buttigieg leads with 26.9% of state delegates to nominate the candidate, while Sanders is behind in 25.1% of the figures, followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren with 18.3%, Joe Biden with 15.6% and Amy Klobuchar with 12.6%, one of them will dispute with Trump who won there.
One can speculate on the real reasons for the delay, suspicions aside, the growth of Bernie Sanders could mean a future polarization in the elections, a radical right against a left (in the American mold) also radical, is almost a global trend.
The important thing is to understand why this occurs, and of course it spreads throughout society, first the difficulty in extreme situations of thinking about political situations when the speeches went to extremes and second because the imposition of a radicalized president arouses a reaction. It is possible to resume serenity and reflect again on the urgent and dramatic world problems, from ecology to income distribution, it would be healthy for democracy, for citizens and for culture as we reflected yesterday on the Oscar nominees who have the finger of two Brazilian directors, but the American and world scenario is worrying.
Between Vertigo and Two Popes
04
Feb
Brazilian democracy does not yet have depth
and maturity, everything is polarized between two exclusive points of view and both authoritarian, but neither is the case of Democracy in Vertigo with a clear interpretation of the facts of the young director Petra Costa, nor Dois Papas (Two Popes) under the direction of Fernando Meirelles, are good directors and have a view of the facts.
I start with Fernando Meirelles because it was his interview at Roda Viva (Brazilian TV program) that encouraged me to talk about the Brazilian Oscar nominations, which should make us all proud, although we may disagree, we need to learn this democratic right, both have cultural foundations.
Meirelles explained his vision of Francisco, which would be the original script of the film, which gradually became the dialogue and the admission of papal mistakes, both made mistakes, as we all do in life, but both manage to dialogue and look at the future of the church and man.
Brazilian democracy lacks this to admit the mistakes of the past, but it is clear, first of all, to know it well, otherwise this will never be possible and in this sense I value and liked the film by Pedra Costa.
In fact, it is necessary to know her story, Elena, her first film has what characterizes her and seems to be the guiding thread of her style, puts her “gaze”, which is clear by putting in the documentary she makes a swirling dance , reminiscent of the deceased sister and closes in a close-up of her eye, I mean, she sees herself putting her vision on the facts.
Seeing the debate, and remembering the films of Meirelles O Fiel Jardineiro (2005) and Cidade de Deus (2002), I see that the debaters (in tv program) know little about his work and are fixated on their own polarized opinions about the film, I also highlight the little trendy but excellent film “Essay on blindness” (2008) that would fit very well for what happens in Brazilian culture.
Both Petra’s documentary and Meirelles’ film have emotion, good images and photography, in short they are good, but most will stay with the polarization and not with the dialogue that art seeks.
Still identity
03
Feb
Philosophy conceptualized the 
question of identity using only the logical principle, A must be A and cannot be non-A, but the very question of “being” has a metaphysical and ontological basis because what it means to be A or not to be, while Being this logical identity is only self-identity.
So cultural and religious groups that seek their own identity can only define themselves as being if they are in relation to non-A, this second principle is the difference, even Hegel says that it is this negativity that can allow what reflection to be A can have in itself.
Heidegger after explaining this principle of logical identity A = A, stating that “each A is himself the same; she says before herself is each A himself the same. In each identity resides the relationship ‘with’, therefore, a mediation, a connection, a synthesis, the union in a unity ”(Heidegger, 2006, p. 39), let us explain better using Heidegger himself.
He immediately explains that in Western history, contrary to what is imagined and said, identity “appears, through the history of Western thought with the character of unity” (idem), and it is not a “tasteless emptiness of that that, in itself devoid of relations, persists in monotonous uniformity ”(idem), that is, it is diverse, there is and the difference persists.
Since then this idea of identity of the same, of us closed in groups, of false collectivity and diversity persisted, the reasons are equally historical, as Heidegger states: “only the philosophy of speculative idealism, prepared by Leibniz and Kant, founds, through Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, a place for the essence in itself synthetic of identity ”(ibidem, p. 39).
Thus, explains Heidegger: “it remains forbidden to think of representing the unity of identity as monotonous uniformity and abstract from the mediation that prevails in Unity” and concludes: “Where this happens, identity is represented only abstractly” (ibidem).
This of course is not without an ontological negativity, as the being is obliged to demand his difference, his negativity and often does so in a radically challenging way, because there is an absence of mediation, what is done in the abstract is to speak of the diverse, of the different, but in the concrete it ignores it, expels it as soon as it manifests itself as an Other.
Heidegger, M. (2006) O que é isto filosofia – identidade e diferença (What is this – philosophy – Identity and difference). RJ, Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
