RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘Antropotécnica’ Categoria

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.

 

The cosmos and divine wrath

05 Mar

The rational / idealistic universe model was of a cosmos working like a clock, reality and the cosmos showed themselves beyond the idea of the modern ones (the Greek eidos is something else), it showed itself as a quantum model where there is a third included (model Barsarab / Lupasco) and in which time and space are no longer absolute and matter is energy.

Thus, the old harmony model was modified by current physics, called Standard Model Physics which, from particle physics, developed a unified model for the forces acting on matter, including the strong, weak and electromagnetic and gravitational forces unifying them quantum field theory, quantum mechanics and special relativity.

The recent discovery of the Higgs Boson, incorrectly named the God particle assuming that it would be responsible for attributing matter to bodies, this model explained the magnetic attraction of planets, light and the various forms and divided matter into many particles.

After the creation of the universe and its expansion certain laws developed bodies, planets and planetary systems in formation and decline, current studies show the development of stars comes from interstellar gas and cosmic dust and hydrogen that at low temperatures collapse and form molecules that give protostars, these under pressure and rotation form the stars.

In addition to our knowledge, this expanding universe acts in an often surprising way and today we know that not only what happens on the planet has internal but also external influences, solar flares and the approach of celestial bodies for example, in short we are a tiny grain of sand in a much more complex and wandering universe.

This entire celestial body acts with its own harmony and not necessarily as the current laws that we know are thought, so a surprise is always possible, for example, today we are looking for the ninth planet (Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet) that would have an orbit external to the our planetary system and would now be approaching the system, affecting for example the Kuiper Belt, and would have a translational orbit of 14,000 years and there would be other outer bodies of the Solar System.

Within this new logic of the universe, aorganic movements (from the inorganic to organic life) are not only possible but easily explainable, the environment around the biosphere is a living organism and it is within a larger universe and subject to its laws.

What happens in the human sphere also has its unstable and unbalanced balances, so it is no longer possible to think of everything as a “harmony”, in the Cartesian sense, but as what tends to favor the functioning of the universe as a whole and for the which forces tend to push before their own laws and determinations in human eyes may be divine wrath, or “perfect divine harmony”, but different from that explained as a clock movement.

So it is not a Kronos, but a Kairós, “opportune moment” or “right” in the divine perspective in which everything that is at odds collapses and that in human eyes is “wrath of God”, when in reality it is a correction of cosmos governed by its own laws.

 

 

The noosphere: from primary matter to complexification.

04 Mar

Teilhard Chardin thus describes the complexification from the first developments of life, the critical transition from the life of cells to an ultra-complex life:

“We will probably never find out (unless, luckily, the science of tomorrow manages to reproduce the phenomenon in the laboratory) – History alone, in any case, will never directly discover the material traces of this emergence – appearance – of microscopic out of the molecular; from the organic out of the chemical, from the living out of the pre-living. ” (Chardin, 1965, p. 63)

 

Although it may seem that nature would have done this preparation alone, it draws attention to the essential originality of the cell, producing something entirely new, and composing an organic multiplicity in a minimum space, although the process may have taken years, each cell has long been prepared to be something original.

It will be through discreet but decisive mutations that occurred for thousands and millions of years, that the complexity of cells and living beings began to be formed, making it possible to perceive “the irresistible developments that are hidden in the weakest slowness, the extreme agitation that is hidden under the resting veil, the entirely new that insinuates itself in the monotonous repetition of the same things ”(Chardin, 1965, p. 8).

It was through the complexification of life that the human emerged, in the beginning God made it from inorganic materials, metaphorically the Bible says about clay, but it is certain that the universe was born before.

So the world of physis (Chardin sees physics in the Greek sense of the word) would be linked to biology, and thinks:

“Could we hesitate for a moment to recognize the evident kinship that links, in its composition and aspects, the world of the proto-living to the world of physical chemistry? I mean, are we not yet, in this first stage of life, but at the core, at least on the very edge of ‘matter’? ” (Chardin, 1965, p. 66)

At the birth of human life, after billions of years after the formation of the universe, a great and decisive mutation will occur, the birth of thought and consciousness, and what Chardin calls interiorization, which in religious terms means the individual soul that is also linked to the collective, the principle of association from the first cells.

The thought and the conscience the notion of person develops, this experience was given thanks to the cerebral development of man, and to the developments of what Chardin calls the Noosphere, the last stage after the Biosphere, the creation and development of life.

Developing and explaining the Chardanian cosmogenesis is a long process that not even fully developed in life, many advances in current astrophysics (many discoveries try to explain the origin of life) help understanding, what is important to emphasize is that the evolution panorama cosmos, not just the Earth, is linked to the development of human consciousness and capacity to connect with the harmony of life.

Chardin, T. (1965). O fenomeno humano (Phenomenous Human). BR, São Paulo : Herder.

 

The first aortic mutation

03 Mar

How exactly life originated is still speculation, one of the most elaborate theories was made by Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) Carl Sagan’s first wife, he is famous for the Cosmos series, her theory called Endosymbiosis.

In this theory the mitochondria and chloroplasts become organelles in a cell, the first by chemical energy and the second by photosynthesis, although the theory has never been proven in the laboratory is interesting, Teilhard Chardin called them “chain of carbon molecules” (The phenomenon human) and ATP (adenosine triphosphate) energy-carrying molecule in living beings, there are other theories of course.

Fundamentalists on duty stay calm, also in the Genesis of the Bible is that God made man out of clay and then blew him in the nostrils, so life also appeared at a certain moment (Genesis 2,7), and the previous text says that “but a steam was rising from the earth to water the whole earth ”(Gn 2,6), that steam could well be CO2.

We may never know exactly how this happened, but it is certain that Earth and Nature came before living organisms and certainly after them (or most of them) man appeared, but the aortic mutation did not stop there.

Genetic mutations, although rare can happen, they can cause new genes to appear in a given population, by natural adaptation mechanisms, if certain characteristics are favorable to survival and reproduction in a certain environment, therefore if the environment changes, the mutations can become stable in the new environment.

The land has undergone several environmental changes, and perhaps what we are going through is the one that most deeply affects the stability of the environment, birds and animals have been extinct and forests and natural environments have been devastated, so it is to be expected that some mutation will occur, but it will be the environment is the first to change and react, so natural phenomena can occur.

This takes many years to occur, but suddenly they break in a chain of mutations, as Teilhard Chardin describes it: “the irresistible developments that are hidden in the most sluggish slowness, – the extreme agitation that is hidden under a veil of rest, – the entirely new that insinuates itself within the monotonous repetition of the same things ”(Chardin, 1965, p. 8).

In times of pandemic risks, looking at the universe of cosmogenesis we live in is essential.

CHARDIN, T. (1965). O fenômeno humano (Human Phonomenon) BR, São Paulo : Herder.

 

 

Naming elephant and worldview

25 Feb

Deceased in February last year, American and Christian philosopher James W. Sire (1933-2018) did extensive research behind the worldview issue, said it took 30 years, published in 2004, probably to begin to address the theme in 1974.

Also his worldview must be reread, I mean that from 1974 to 2004 the world underwent transformations that it deepened, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the cold war that now seems to be reborn, the fall of dictatorships that seem to come back in all over the planet.

I have not read the book, but one of the book’s chapters and also its commentators have helped formulate an idea, though inaccurate, of his main book Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, publisher IVP Academic), and the chapter I refer to is the Definitions of Worldview: from Dilthey to Naugle, which in the title is suggestive of some idealism which the text confirms early on, is available on google Books, if he citing Dilthey its good news for me, and it is good text.

It says at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the origin of the term Weltanschauung originated with Kant (1724-1804) (amaze idealists!), “but only in passing” and quotes Dilthey verbatim: “to denote a set of beliefs that underlie and shape all human thought and action.” (Sire, 2004, p. 23), denoting a set of beliefs that underpin and shape all human thought and action.

Although appropriate, perhaps the most thorough analysis of the term, Heidegger’s reading which updated and developed the subject in a broader sense than that of Kant and Dilthey is lacking, and Hans Georg Gadamer will rightly criticize Dilthey’s conception of the idealist.

To follow the concept of Weltanschauung Cites Nietszche, Wittgenstein, with tours of Plato and Descartes, Foucault and passing Rorthy art, and then begins to address evangelical Christian authors (Reformed is the name abroad), James Orr, Abraham Kuyper , Herman Dooyeweerd, Ronald Nash until he comes to what he calls the new synthesis that would be David Naugle.

However, never runs away from idealism, says he goes from ontology to hermeneutics (not the other way around) and says that this synthetic view is characterized by a “system”. semiotic of narrative signs ”(Sire, 2004, p. 42) quoting Naugle who made such a synthesis. However, the true synthesis hidden behind the text, with a clear nominalist view and the idea of ​​a semiotic system, reveals itself by quoting the biblical text: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe me also, referring to the biblical passage in John 14: 1, because you then ignore the text that says, “In my father’s house are many mansions.”

The idea of ​​signs, myths and symbols embedded in narratives that represent a worldview is not negligible, and it is even important, however any view that is solely about narrative does not do the work of removing the anthropological view and the real “historical view”.  Of what happened, being the idealist and unreal vision of Dilthey’s historicism.

There is another more significant passage, the so-called return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:10: 32), which some idealistic authors and exegetes dislike the name, seeking to idolize the eldest son who stayed at home with his father, who is more conservative. therefore, but also his prodigal son, his defect, went to the world to experiment.

The fact that he returned is commendable, but what a worldview he brought from his deviance, in fact their father is merciful to his conservative and rebel. 

 

Overworked and true empathy

23 Feb

Always smiling and needing to be happy can be altruism and even heroism of many people, which should give us confidence and empathy should be transparency, which is not always empathic. Of course, this does not mean being rude or rude, nor deviation from personality, but the relief of inner dualism in the face of truth, even when it is not sympathetic, makes one have greater internal coherence, which is not confused with identity.
Identity may be personal, group or cultural, sometimes confused with being conniving or convenient, but at the root this is falsehood, so empathy has its place in the face of truth and being, not always the social ethics that dictate rules of convenience. and “legality,” which has come to be called politically correct, but could well be politically convenient.
Since the 1930s, the Brazilian has been spoken of as the “cordial man”, although there is a great anthropological and historical distance from the politically correct, this would not be just the update.
Empathy should then be a good mood in the sense that the ability to calmly get into controversial issues and issues with a strong possibility of polarization, the world today needs this, and therefore confusing it with hypocrisy, easy smile or just tolerance can be “ cordial ”and may not be a true feeling.

The pandemic has made many people bitter, dissatisfied and in a way accentuated individualism, in The partner and the next (Le socius et le prochain), Paul Ricoeur explains this difference in relationship.

In fact, doing to the other what we would like it to do for us, is not the empathic system, what neuroscience shows is that we have a set of neurons called mirror neurons that say that imitating the other is a more natural empathic form than To do something to another simply because we would like it done to us, deep down we are “asking” for something we want.

Empathy means the gift that everyone has to be able to feel what the other feels, so to speak of the Other is the true way of both finding an innate gift of humanity, neuroscience reveals, as well as making this truth explicit, we exist and feel the Other.
We only deny it by denying the self that has empathy as a natural “skill”, just by a constant denial training. There is, therefore, no true self without the Other, without the empathy with the Other, natural and not forced, which is thus made a staging and the Other will feel, empathy is thus ontological, part of Being.
The vídeo of  TedX by psyquiatrist Helen Riess is very interesting:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=baHrcC8B4WM

 

 

It’s time to change of way

11 Feb

It is not my proposal, but the name of the last book by Edgar Morin (Editor Bertrand do Brasil, 2020), the almost centenary French philosopher shows the lessons of the coronavirus that we resisted in learning, it is also very similar to the name of Peter Sloterdijk’s book : You have to change your life (publisher Relógio d´Água, 2018) this well before the coronavirus.

Before moving on to some of Morin’s lessons, I want to say that we ALL need to change our lives, the planet has run out, words have run out, polarizing politics runs out, and unfortunately sweet words like “fraternity”, “solidarity”, “compassion” ”And so many others seem to be only the will of some that others change, without, however, that each one changes himself first.

The preamble is a historical retrospective from the Spanish flu to May 68 and the current ecological crisis, the lessons from the coronavirus in chapter 1 I comment on at the end.

I begin at the end to affirm that Morin, who also shares values ​​of fraternity, of planetary citizenship, of overcoming inequalities, etc., has in his book a very clear proposal, after demonstrating that the crisis is prior to the coronavirus that only worsened it , on page 4 sentence “… there are two inseparable requirements for political renewal: to leave neoliberalism, to reform the state” (page 46), which will provide the means in chapter 3.

This is actually your second point in the cap. 2 Post-corona challenges, the challenge of the political crisis, of the nine challenges it points to in current crises: the existential challenge, also pointed out in Pope Francis’ Fratelli Tutti Encyclical, the challenges of crises: globalization, democracy, digital, ecological protection, the economic crisis, uncertainties and the danger of a major setback (pages 44 to 53).

The 15 lessons from the coronavirus: about our existence, isolation shows us how those who “did not have access to the superfluous and the frivolous and deserve to reach the stage where we have the superfluous” live (page 23), on the condition recalls the Meadows report, which pointed to the limits of growth, the lesson about the uncertainty of our life, the lesson of our relationship with death, the lesson about our civilization (life turned outward, without inner life, the life of shopping malls and happy hours), the awakening of solidarity, inequality and social isolation, the diversity of situations and the management of the epidemic, the nature of a crisis, the 9 initial lessons.

The lesson about science and medicine, do we understand “that science is not a repertoire of absolute truths (unlike religion” (page 33), the crisis of intelligence, which he wisely divides into “invisible complexities” the way of knowledge “of human realities (growth rate, GDP, opinion polls, etc.” (page 35), point 2. is the ecology of action, it warns that action can “go in the opposite direction to what is expected and return like a boomerang to the head of the one who decided it” (page 35), how many actions and speeches fell in this ditch.

The twelfth lesson is the inefficiency of the state, which, in addition to neoliberal politics, yields “to pressures and interests that paralyze all reforms” (page 38), while polarization deepens.

The thirteenth lesson is national relocation and dependence, and regrets “that the national problem is so poorly formulated and always reduced to the opposition between sovereignty and globalization” (page 39), note the speeches that polarize and do not leave this circle vicious.

The fourteenth lesson is the crisis in Europe, I remember Sloterdijk’s book “If Europe woke up”, and Morin opens the wound: “on the shock of the epidemic, the European Union broke into national fragments” (page 40) .

The fifteenth lesson is the planet in crisis, quotes Prof. Thomas Michiels, biologist and specialists in virus transmission: “There is no doubt that globalization influences epidemics and favors the spread of the virus. When observing the evolution of past epidemics, there are notable examples in which it is noted that epidemics follow railways and human displacements. There is no doubt, the circulation of individuals aggravates the epidemic ”(page 41).

MORIN, E. (2020) É hora de mudarmos de via: lições do coronavírus, transl. Ivone Castilho Benedetti, collaboration Sabah Abouessalam. Rio de Janeiro, BR: Bertrand do Brasil.

 

 

Why an “epoch” is needed

05 Feb

Our whole way of looking at life is filtered by a worldview, a complex of values, family, social and religious education in a broad sense, that is, we all have some belief, or else we would have the whole explanation of the world about the puzzles nature, man and life. The pandemic could have chaged this worldview.

This “cosmological” view always implies (not nearly) pre-conceptual values, that is, how we classify the world, things and social ways of developing life, this worldview was called by Heidegger Weltanstchauung, the word is important because every translation is inaccurate.

In the ontological aspect that Heidegger drank, there is the phenomenology of Husserl, his teacher, and for him this was “the description of what appears” or “science that has as objective or project that description”, and for him it is itself a concept of method, which Hans Georg Gadamer later developed in “Truth and Method”.

However many drank from Husserl’s phenomenology, each in his own way, Karl Jaspers, Emmauel Levinas, Edith Stein, Jean Paul Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, Hans Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Martin Buber, Nicolai Hartmann, Hans Jonas, and the one who turned it into Hans-Georg Gadamer philosophy.

The open sense of Being in Heidegger extrapolates the socio-political, biological or anthropological fields (for this reason it is ontological, or proper to Being), and the concept of Dasein means to be launched in the world while “ente” are things in different ways, that is, everything we say, feel, understand, behave in the final analysis what we “are”.

If we enter this clearing, the Being is also the one who needs help, healing, listening, a word of acceptance as the Being of the Ent, that is, in his functions as an experience.

Even though biblical exegesis considers all analysis of the sending of Jesus’ disciples to the world closed, go around the world and proclaim the good news and heal the sick, this care for others (in the broad sense of the word “heal”) also means openness, “Epoch” and transcendence.

Go around the world as a new worldview.

 

The missing future, semi-open dialogues

03 Feb

The idea that we are about to change is in the mouth of many apocalyptics and until some idealist theorists and philosophers, although most claim openness and dialogue, what they think about it is not elaborate, make long speeches and weave unrealistic narratives, but they want only to hear their own voice.

The true dialogue between tradition and change, fortunately in this field many people are doing this properly, must at the same time provide a rereading of the past, a respect and an understanding of why the events happened this way or that.
This is the reading from the pre-Socrates, through the high and low middle ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, although criticism can be done throughout, and even it must be well done, it is easy to do critical rereading because this time It has been difficult because the time has come.
Especially difficult for the Enlightenment and modernity, postmodernity or late, or its continuity, is still difficult to read because the transition has not taken place and the problem is the difficulty of overcoming it, almost everyone will agree that the Modernity is already more tradition than any possibility of a new “revolution” within its thinking, although the attempts are many.
Nietzsche called this dilemma “eternal return”, he already realized in his time and some think this is new, and in part was right for the horizon he saw in his time, but when the new is not born traditional thinking suffers from aging. and sameness.
It tries to look ‘new’ or ‘creative’, but there is nothing that really changes reality. Great sociocultural problems of our time, moral and even religious, will not change without a new perspective, although redundant one would say a brand new “new”, and in order not to be pure imagination, one must find elements already living that point to the future.
Three new elements are visible: a globalized planet, it is already possible to see itself as a world although different cultural aspects are not yet respected, an exhaustion of the forces of nature, the domination of nature by man was the great mode of modernity, and the end of hunger and misery on the planet, though with resources available for it, has not been realized.
Of course there are many other factors, but they stem from a lack of dialogue with the future, the centralization of autocratic groups, the absence of a networked politics and culture, although the mechanisms for this exist, are countered as “alienation” and even as responsible for problems that exist long before any thought about new technologies.

 

 

The foundations of the idea concept

28 Jan

Following Sloterdijk’s reasoning, in which the fundamentals must be thought and in function of them one can return to the principle and preconception of each thought, one can revise idea with the Greek “eidos”.

The eidetic sense of hermeneutics is that which promotes the unification of the internal and the external in the manifestations of life, in the natural sciences the object is seen by itself (returning things for themselves), in the idealistic sciences the “object” is that achieved by a continuous effort of the researcher (the Kantian transcendence), although he commits himself to return to tradition frequently, the whole is not renewed, because the “object” is separated from itself by isolated observation, outside of Being and possible preconceptions, is the “idea”.

For Aristoteles there were universal principles, not as Kant later thought, but from the idea of ​​the one (tó hen), what is (tó on) and the genres (animals, plants, living beings), while essence (eidos) does not. would be a universal, but something common (koinos) to multiple things, there is therefore not in Aristotle the idealistic dualism, but the separation between universals and essence.

In Plato this dualism is accentuated, the sensible world and the world of ideas (still in the sense of eidos, essence), this separation will be troublesome to the modern idealists, who will unite it, but without a necessary philosophical reflection. the dichotomy subject and object never reunited as a being.

Ontology, and the method of philosophical hermeneutics, is an attempt to bring these fields together, although they remain distinct and under tension, but with possibilities of clarification beyond the classical separation.

Gadamer in his work matter “Truth and Method” vol. II, picks it up like this: “Hermeneutics is the art of understanding. It seems especially difficult to understand the problems of hermeneutics, at least as unclear concepts of science, criticism, and reflection dominate the discussion.

And this is because we live in an age where science is increasingly dominating nature and governing the management of human coexistence, and this pride of our civilization, which relentlessly corrects the lack of success and constantly produces new tasks of scientific inquiry, where once again progress, planning, and damage removal are grounded, develops the power of true blindness. ”(Gadamer, 1996: 292).

Gadamer after explaining that the return to Being proposed by Heidegger is a return to the hermeneutic method, which was neither to develop a theory of the sciences of the spirit (as idealism did, and the German in particular) nor to propose a critique of historical reason, as Dilthey did, and which Gadamer will clarify in his book “The Question of Historical Consciousness” to say that it is not even historical romanticism.

Its ultimate goal is expressed by stating: “what I did was put dialogue at the center of hermeneutics” (Gadamer, 1996, p. 27), but its dialogue is neither idealism (would be absurd) nor any form of philosophical blindness, it is precisely the rescue of philosophical hermeneutics.

Therefore, their dialogue is neither idealistic dogmatism, but nowadays theory has become ahistorical dogmatism, but rather the identification of preconceptions, from which it is possible to merge horizons as well as to accept worldview distinctions.

Gadamer, Hans Georg. Verdad y Metodo (Truth and method) v. II. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1996.2v.