RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘Noosfera’ Categoria

The possible, but difficult “clearing”

18 May

The concealment of knowledge also hides a concealment of knowledge, without any kind of clairvoyance, access to knowledge becomes attached to mental, logical or ideo-logical schemes that in turn are attached to contemporary thought.

The way Heidegger saw the clearing, it was difficult to assess even for his closest students like Hanna Arendt and Husserl, just to name big names, but in his school of thought many still remain stuck in idealism.

The central problem of idealism, for Heidegger, is that through the a priori categories of understanding, all the properties of objects are determined (as if it were only “logical” to know them) and so beings cannot manifest they are pure essence of what are, out of the “logical”.

Thus, between fundamentalist occultism, clearly problematic, and Western “scientific” thinking, as said by Heidegger “established itself as the only measure of man’s habitation in the world”, said in his text The end of philosophy and the task of thought.

In his text Plato’s doctrine of truth, he begins by translating Eidos (the Idea as it was badly translated) as an aspect, which is not an entity in its mere appearance, as it is immediately perceived by the senses, before showing the being appears and can be captured by the intellect (Heidegger, 2007, p. 3).

The other question pointed out by Heidegger is about the explicit translation of “alethéia” by unveiling and that cannot be identified with “truth”, “the question of unveiling as such, is not the question of truth… we should not translate alethéia by the current word truth ”(Heidegger, 1972, p. 36), and thus“ the statement of an essential transformation of truth is also not sustainable, that is, [Plato’s] transition from unveiling to rectitude ”(Heidegger, 1972).

What this implies is not clearly obvious, but it is the clearing itself (in the middle of the forest), that is, clarity, it is only possible in a space of previous opening, something that appears, a “presentation”.

Said explicitly by Heidegger himself: “The ray of light does not first produce the clearing, the opening, it just travels through it. [It] can only shine if the opening is already guaranteed “, so it is an event in time, and perhaps this time of concealment of the Pandemic precedes a” clearing “.

Heidegger, M.  O fim da filosofia e a tarefa do pensamento. São Paulo: Livraria Duas Cidades, 1972.

________. La doctrina de Platón acerca de la verdad. Eikasia, Revista de Filosofía, v. 12, extraor- dinario I, 2007.

.

O problema central do idealismo, para Heidegger, é que mediante as categorias a priori do entendimento, determina-se todas as propriedades dos objetos (como se fosse só “lógico” o conhecer) e assim os seres não podem manifestar são essência pura do que são, fora do “lógico”.

Assim entre o ocultismo fundamentalista, claramente problemático, e o pensamento “científico” ocidental, como dito por Heidegger “se estabeleceu como única medida da habitação do homem no mundo”, dito em seu texto O fim da filosofia e a tarefa do pensamento.

Em seu texto A doutrina da verdade em Platão, ele começa traduzindo Eidos (a Ideia como foi má traduzida) como aspecto, que não é um ente em sua mera aparência, como é percebida de forma imediata pelos sentidos, antes de se mostrar o ente aparece e pode ser captado pelo intelecto (Heidegger, 2007, p. 3).

A outra questão apontada por Heidegger é sobre a tradução explícita de “alethéia” por desvelamento e que não pode ser identificada com “verdade”, “a questão do desvelamento como tal, não é a questão da verdade … não devemos traduzir alethéia pela palavra corrente verdade” (Heidegger, 1972, p. 36), e assim “também não é sustentável a afirmativa de uma transformação essencial da verdade, isto é, a passagem [de Platão] do desvelamento para retitude” (Heidegger, 1972).

O que isto implica não é claramente obvio, mas é a própria clareira (no meio da floresta), ou seja, claridade, só é possível em um espaço de abertura prévia, algo que aparece, uma “presentação”.

Dito explicitamente pelo próprio Heidegger: “O raio de luz não produz primeiramente a clareira, a abertura, apenas percorre-a. [Ele] só pode brilhar se a abertura já é garantida”, assim é um evento no tempo, e talvez quiçá este tempo de ocultamento da Pandemia anteceda a uma “clareira”.

Será preciso “Mudar de via” afirma Edgar Morin em seu último livro, a humanidade mudará ?

 

Heidegger, M.  O fim da filosofia e a tarefa do pensamento. São Paulo: Livraria Duas Cidades, 1972.

________. La doctrina de Platón acerca de la verdad. Eikasia, Revista de Filosofía, v. 12, extraor- dinario I, 2007.

 

 

Idealism and its religion

14 May

Beginning with the critique of idealism, in “The German Ideology” (1932), where he talks about Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, who even call them St. Buer and St. Stirner, for their claim to be theology.
If the essence of idealism is the separation of object and subject, I make a purposeful inversion, the essence of religious thinking for Ludwig Feuerbach is the separation of subject and sensible objects, for for him object consciousness can be, although distinct from itself, a consciousness that coincides shortly thereafter when dealing with the religious object, because of its “transcendence” is exactly what makes it return to self-consciousness, I explain.
For Feuerbach, and the sensitive object is out of being (though ontology here is only an appeal), the religious object is in it, it is an intrinsic object, and neither does it abandon it, its moral consciousness leaves it, it is an intimate object. , and even the most intimate, is the closest of all.
His critique of theology using idealism essentially presupposes a critical judgment, the “difference between the divine and the non-divine, between what is and is not worthy of worship,” so that with this dualism it is possible to play all the essence of the divine in the mass grave of the Ideal.
The consciousness of God is man’s consciousness itself to him, this is the Hegelian idealism made religion: the knowledge of God which is man’s self-knowledge, there is no God-self for man.
The negation of the subject is considered irreligious, and its relation to sensible objects, a negation of the subject, is the atheistic religion of Feuerbach, which Marx will turn to call them the Old Hegelians, and seeks to make their inversion here new now. from object to subject, here is the new “religious” version of the Young Hegelians, like Marx, even criticizing Feuerbach’s main atheistic thesis: “thought comes from the subject,” not the object.
It is no longer about Heaven to Earth,” said Marx, but now “from earth to heaven,” that is, from the object to the subject, the labor force and the production, to their divinization (of the object, of money, economy, etc.). If, for Marx, fetishization was the separation of labor from his instrument of labor and commodity, fetishization may be reification (res – thing) or objectification for these young “Hegelians”, where he sees the separation between subject and object. , in religious fetishism is the separation of (sinful) consumption of the individual (seen in self-awareness) to which the religious must “attend” and live his “concrete”. The fair relationship with money, work, health and education is only a surpassing of the idealistic religious view, its consummation in a man in harmonious relationship with the world, and in this case also beauty, poetry and life. healthy would have a perspective, for the “pure” religious not. This religiosity lacks an asceticism that in fact “elevates” them, although they seem as linked to contemporary themes, actually has an idealistic god and not pretending to be realistic as they would wish, their concrete is the modern state god their economy, or the positivist law and his narrow view of justice.Beginning with the critique of idealism, in “The German Ideology” (1932), where he talks about Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, who even call them St. Buer and St. Stirner, for their claim to be theology.
If the essence of idealism is the separation of object and subject, I make a purposeful inversion, the essence of religious thinking for Ludwig Feuerbach is the separation of subject and sensible objects, for for him object consciousness can be, although distinct from itself, a consciousness that coincides shortly thereafter when dealing with the religious object, because of its “transcendence” is exactly what makes it return to self-consciousness, I explain.
For Feuerbach, and the sensitive object is out of being (though ontology here is only an appeal), the religious object is in it, it is an intrinsic object, and neither does it abandon it, its moral consciousness leaves it, it is an intimate object. , and even the most intimate, is the closest of all.
His critique of theology using idealism essentially presupposes a critical judgment, the “difference between the divine and the non-divine, between what is and is not worthy of worship,” so that with this dualism it is possible to play all the essence of the divine in the mass grave of the Ideal.
The consciousness of God is man’s consciousness itself to him, this is the Hegelian idealism made religion: the knowledge of God which is man’s self-knowledge, there is no God-self for man.
The negation of the subject is considered irreligious, and its relation to sensible objects, a negation of the subject, is the atheistic religion of Feuerbach, which Marx will turn to call them the Old Hegelians, and seeks to make their inversion here new now. from object to subject, here is the new “religious” version of the Young Hegelians, like Marx, even criticizing Feuerbach’s main atheistic thesis: “thought comes from the subject,” not the object.
It is no longer about Heaven to Earth,” said Marx, but now “from earth to heaven,” that is, from the object to the subject, the labor force and the production, to their divinization (of the object, of money, economy, etc.). If, for Marx, fetishization was the separation of labor from his instrument of labor and commodity, fetishization may be reification (res – thing) or objectification for these young “Hegelians”, where he sees the separation between subject and object. , in religious fetishism is the separation of (sinful) consumption of the individual (seen in self-awareness) to which the religious must “attend” and live his “concrete”. The fair relationship with money, work, health and education is only a surpassing of the idealistic religious view, its consummation in a man in harmonious relationship with the world, and in this case also beauty, poetry and life. healthy would have a perspective, for the “pure” religious not. This religiosity lacks an asceticism that in fact “elevates” them, although they seem as linked to contemporary themes, actually has an idealistic god and not pretending to be realistic as they would wish, their concrete is the modern state god their economy, or the positivist law and his narrow view of justice.

 

Ethics and religion.

13 May

Ethics and religion have always been related in history, modernity has separated them.

Hegel (1770-1831) despite the criticism of the Kantian model, in an attempt to build a teleological morality he created the “state morality”, which from his work ‘Principles of Philosophy of Law’ goes on to determine how the institutions that mediate it the life of the subjects referring to it as: a person in the abstract (the individual) as is typical of idealism; a moral subject and not a moral society as subjects including the moral state, and thus having an ethical citizen.

For this, Hegel describes a modern state that provides the full realization of the individual’s freedom. For him, each item of this triad (State, individual, Society) can be analyzed separately, but they are products of iterations, which are developed to arrive at the subsequent one.

In the beginning, in §4, Hegel tries to introduce free will as a starting point of law and as a motto for the development of the work, as it is in all idealistic culture about freedom:

 “The domain of law is the spirit in general; there, its own base, its starting point is in free will, in such a way that freedom constitutes its substance and its destiny and that the system of law is the empire of realized freedom, the world of the spirit produced as a second nature from itself. ” (Hegel, 1997)

What he calls “realized freedom” will be done through a state conceived by an abstract right, the morality and an ethic that refer to it.

Ethicity was defined by Hegel as: “… the idea of ​​freedom while living well, that in its consciousness it has its knowledge and its will and that, through the action of this conscience, it has its reality.” (Hegel, 1997), this is idealism is the conscience that determines reality.

As the individual has an institutionalized freedom, abstract law is the supposed freedom of free will that is determined in the face of things, classic idealistic division between subjects and objects, between objectivity and subjectivity, so to take possession, become owner, make contracts a knowing subject is created, aware of his rights, not admitting himself, but the ignorance of the current laws and thus of the conscience that each person has before objects, everything is established and guided by the state, by its ethics.

Here, there is a central aspect of our development, because it is in the State that the individual finds the possibilities of the common good to be realized, because in the particular will of each one desires the common good, it will be what makes the citizen a truly free being, that it is nothing but arbitrary interests enshrined by the State.

The moral crisis of institutions (and the state) is due to the construction of an abstract individual, of nations and not of peoples, they are not subjects, what happens is according to moral rules pre-established by interests, but whose ethics are questioned.

In a more recent time, based on studies by Husserl, after Heidegger, and recently by Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Lévinas, the ontological ethics is made from the Other.

Paul Ricoeur was influenced and maintained a dialogical attitude with Mounier, Marcel, and many others, maintaining a dialogical attitude with which he maintained a personal relationship.

Looking at aspects of the person (of the Other) of nature here, dialogue with religion is possible.

 

HEGEL, G. W. F. (1997) Princípios da Filosofia do Direito. Tradução: Orlando Vitorino. SP, Brazil: Martins Fontes. 1ª edição.

 

 

Friends and not servants

07 May

Friendship is a link that allows for reciprocity, says Byung Chul Han in his book No swarm: Perspectives of the digital: “Power is an asymmetrical relationship. It establishes a hierarchical relationship. The power of communication is not dialogical. Unlike power, respect is NOT necessarily an asymmetric relationship. In fact, one often feels respect for exemplary people or superiors, but “reciprocal” respect, which is based on a symmetrical relationship of recognition, is fundamentally possible. ”

This relationship means that we may or may not be in reciprocity, and we may or may not be in healthy relationships of friendship, affectivity and love (without a sense of agape), it does not mean that other relationships do not exist, for example , civil authority, social or religious for those who should really be respected as “authority” and not by imposition or fear, this case is justified only when there is a clear intention to violate social rights and duties.

In an authoritarian society the only respect is hierarchical, moral rules are forgotten, ethics only serves the logic of power and mutual respect is confused with total “freedom”.

It is not possible to go straight to the plane of love without going through some individual or reciprocal empathy that is the most desirable, even though when the relationship is asymmetrical, someone who has respect manages to remain in some way in an empathic way, even if there are acceptable limits, unless violence, for example.

In the biblical passage that the Master explains to the disciples what kind of love they should have, that love “as I loved you” (John 15:12), he adds: “I no longer call you servants, because the servant does not know what your lord. I call you friends, because I let you know everything I heard from my Father ”(Jn 15.15), this implies a relationship of symmetry and reciprocity as indicated above.

Jesus shows this by washing his feet (photo), but his friendship was over the limit: he gave his life for his friends.

It is also a good harmony of friendship, nobody has more friendship (or love) than the one who gives his life for his friends. 

 

The relationship between friendship and love

06 May

Philia translated from greek, romanized becomes filia, in Portuguese son is “filho”, the same root of affiliation, where the a here is no longer a negation of inclusion, in the sense of belonging, affiliated with an institution, for example.

In this Greek root fit both love and friendship, philo-sophia, love or friendship to wisdom, however love can also be (we have already made a post) like the eros or agape friendship, which in this case surpasses friendship.

Friendship can grow and become an agapic love, that is, capable of creating trust and above any interest, in which case friendship and love complement and expand.

In human, cultural and spiritual terms it is what favors a person’s good performance and mental health, so the distrust and enmity that can lead to hatred is the cause of many wars, because the economic, political or social interest without real ties it is nothing else.

There is no way to break a spiral of hatred when it grows, many wars and totalitarian regimes are proof of this, and the root is in every social cell where friendship and love have ceased to exist.

On the other hand, when these bonds grow and spread in a network, everything becomes healthy and there is a virtuous cycle where the best human and social values ​​appear: solidarity, fraternity and what we call agapic love, which goes beyond any interest, it is an “amisticia” in ancien roman.

The Roman thinker Cícero has a text with exactly this name (Amisticia) and says in the text: “This is the first precept of friendship: ask friends only what is honest, and do for them only what is honest”, so this is the origin of a society that aims to be happy and peaceful. 

 

 

 

Amisticia *Friendship in latin

05 May

It comes from the Latin that comes from the word and means generosity, closeness, although there was a Greek graduation and we put its meanings in the previous post, in fact it is related in that case to an affection, so-so interested and here coming from Latin, it means a choice.

The idea of proximity can unite and synthesize the two meanings, although today there is much talk of the relational being, the proximal being (the word does not exist) is superior to the relationship and in times of networks (it should be of media and not network, which is relationship) this relationship does not mean having proximity, so it is a restricted definition, it can have a relationship but outside of it.

Something positive can be removed from each aspect, being in a relationship is better than indifference, which is the absence of it, while closeness means the possibility of a friendship with deeper ties and this should include a form of Love superior to interest, to simple affection. or the simple relationship.

Consciously or not, it is this form of relationship that every human being seeks, most of the time in the opposite way, incorrect or without depth.

What form of friendship is this sought by philosophers, poets, mystics or religious, where is it? They ask, did those who say they found it found it? This has to do with the truth

 

 

 

The Easter of Unleavened Bread to the Eucharist

01 Apr

It is true that Easter celebrated by Christians as the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, was already celebrated with the passage of the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt to their promised land, today Israel, however the festival is older.

The two strongest signs of Christianity are the death of Jesus precisely in the place of the lamb that is sacrificed at the Jewish feast, remembering the lamb that was sacrificed by Abraham in the place of his son, and his resurrection on Easter day, that is, the passage to eternal life.

However, the date is older, the Jewish calendar is lunisolar, that is, it is based on the cycles of the sun and the moon, unlike the Christian who is between the autumn / spring equinoxes in the northern hemisphere, and summer / autumn in the southern hemisphere.

The feast was still celebrated in the exile of the Jewish people in Egypt, it is estimated that about 3,500 years ago, they sacrificed a healthy lamb, one year old, on a date called the 14th of nissan, for a week they consumed unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and the blood of the animal was used to mark the thresholds of the Jewish homes, so that the passing angel of death would not enter those houses.

The breads consumed in this period because they are unleavened, are called unleavened bread that give rise to the feast before Easter, on Friday the lamb is sacrificed, and should be eaten before dawn and what is not eaten must be burned.

Jesus was sacrificed just on a Easter Friday and this confirms the prophetic sign foreseen in the Bible, and on Thursday he performs the supper with unleavened bread, however, while purifying and sharing the bread and wine, he says: “this is my body and my blood ”instituting the Christian Eucharist, in which an aortic event takes place, an inorganic substance becomes organic and in this case divine, this is the consecrated host.

Christians call it transubstantiation, but our whole body, except the soul for those who believe, is also composed of inorganic substance, and in Christian eschatology the entire universe will be transformed into the body of Christ, in the view of Teilhard Chardin it has always been, because everything he is your body.

So it can be said that the future of the universe and humanity is to become all Eucharistic.

 

 

The civilizing future

31 Mar

For many authors, World War I was already the end of a civilization, although the most popular literature at the time was courage and patriotism, the most lucid minds saw the absurdity of the war and among them was Teilhard Chardin who lost two brothers and one close friend Jean Boussac who would be a great name for French geology.

However, Chardin believed in the future, for him there is a “law of complexity and conscience”, which can be thought of in these terms: “Spiritual perfection (or conscious ´centrality´) and material synthesis (or complexity) are nothing more than the two aspects and the two related parts of the same phenomenon ”, so it does not separate our historical and spiritual evolution.

His belief in the future was clearly expressed in an unprecedented interview given to Marcel Brion in January 1952 and published in the French magazine “Les Nouvelles Littéraires”, in which he clarifies the vision that transcends evil and suffering, an accusation that was made to him as a apostasy.

In this interview, stating that it was after he worked as a makeup artist in the trenches of war, that he definitely coined the word Noosphere: “I used that term for the first time in one of my first essays on the Human Phenomenon, more or less in 1927, but, indeed, the idea of ​​a human spiritual community adjacent to the organic had been born in me in the trenches: the idea, I mean, of a kind of special biological “mega unit” that constitutes the thinking envelope of the earth. This is, for me, the noosphere ”.

Far from a belief in technization, says Chardin: “Neither mechanization, therefore, nor identification by fusion and loss of consciousness, but unification through laborious ultra-determination and love” and this can build a sustainable future for humanity.

At the end of the interview, he asks: “Isn’t the birth, around us, of such ´neo-humanism´ (linked, in my religious thought, to the progress of“ charity ”) not precisely one of the distinguishing characteristics of the times that we are going through? ”

Brion, Marcel. Rencontre avec le Père Teilhard de Chardin, “Les Nouvelles Littéraires”, january of 1951,

 

Criticism of inadequate reason

30 Mar

Western philosophy lives in an inadequate reason, it cannot be rational to ignore the pain, death and inclement weather of nature and life, life is death and resurrection and without understanding one does not understand the other, in the middle of a pandemic it is observed that not even religious understood this.

In Western philosophy, idealism and its dualistic logic predominate, so pain and happiness complement each other, that is why so much sadism is possible with one’s own body, with human relationships, although now there is a great appeal to empathy, we have already discussed the “third party included ”Of quantum physics and the logic of going beyond me-you.

Epicurus submitted the pain to the tetrapharmakon, the idea that to deny it would be useless so it is to seek the best way to live with it, it is the neurotic terrain of right and wrong, of good and evil, to reach a philosophical plain populated as I would say Espinosa, good and bad encounters.

Epicurus’ first two remedies refer to the intellect, proper to idealism, to undo all the irrational superstitions and fears that cause anguish in men, the death and anger of the gods, that is why the litany God is good, he is , but incompatible with evil and this does not mean the absence of pain, but its transposition to a greater good.

The last two remedies are a hedonistic “ethics”, it deals with the preventive characters of pain and the obtaining of pleasure, they also do not admit pain with a contingency of life, and not everything is inevitable, for example death, and so it remains improper reason.

Camus also addressed the issue, and we had the opportunity to make a post about the Myth of Sisyphus, and his starting point is to find happiness where it is possible in dark times (wars).

If we admit the pain, and go through it, we will find a third go-beyond or think towards the beyond, suggested by Emmanuel Lévinas, which means to move more and more towards the stranger, the mystery and the infinite (another Lévinas theme) and we have already mentioned here the Cosmos and Teilhard de Chardin’s vision of a Christian worldview.

We entered Easter week and with it in the Christian worldview, the sacrifice of Christ replaces the sacrifice of the lamb made by Abraham (in the three great monotheistic religions: Islam, Judaism and Christianity), so the pain enters a new meaning from of which afterlife is possible.

 

 

Love and divine logic

26 Mar

Only those who are able to overcome the limits of pain, hatred and contempt can approach a divine love, it is necessary to overcome the dualistic logic of the struggle between good and evil, deo-logic is the one that always meets for good, what the Greeks called agathosyne, which comes from Agathon kindness in a high sense of spirit, and which is pursuit.

There is a third party included who walks with us.

Pain is often what hurts the soul the most, but it can also be the one that broadens it, in these moments of evolution of the pandemic crisis in the country, we face the most serious need to seek strength beyond sanitary measures, weak is true, but the The defense of life must continue in those who show solidarity with those affected by the virus.

Only by understanding this deeper sense of pain will we be able to embrace it, to have hope and to look to a future where we will no longer have to run after lost time, but prepare and anticipate ourselves to avoid even worse humanitarian crises, which may come.

There is always a third possibility and just as pain is a transition from one state to another, what can arise after much suffering is an even greater novelty, a leap in quality in what we are as men and as nature, and overcoming current stage.

Edgar Morin wrote in his recent book It is necessary to change the path: lessons from the coronavirus, in this sense as well: “The utopia of the best of all worlds must give way to the hope of a better world. Like every great crisis, like every great collective unhappiness, our planetary crisis awakens hope. ”

It can thus be better understood, both in the theological and philosophical sense, in a central passage of Jesus’ passion when on the cross he shouts (Mark 1,34): “. 34At three in the afternoon, Jesus cried out in a loud voice: – “Eloi, Eloi, lamá sabactâni?”, Which means: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, Because it is in this pain that the human and the divine become merge, emerging a new reality of death and resurrection, yes God died say the philosophers, but there is a third included: after he rose, so you can understand the passage from death to life.

All this pain, this “great collective unhappiness” says Morin awakens hope, because it is indeed a passage, perhaps the most painful that humanity has gone through, even though we have had hateful wars, even though we have conflicts of a social, ethnic and religious nature, there is a feeling of pain.

All this pain will only make sense if we find another way of looking at it right there in front.