Arquivo para a ‘Método e Verdade Científica’ Categoria

War advances with no prospect of peace

17 May

Finland and Sweden have already asked to join NATO and Russia threatens with retaliation, having already cut off the energy supply to Finland, the fear of a conflict on the borders of the countries grows.

Various efforts were made at negotiations, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö spoke with Putin, also German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, both without any practical result.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe on April Wednesday, the first call made in the Biden administration, and the Chinese general said that no one can deny that Taiwan belonged China, relations are also strained with China.

The chances of peace in Ukraine are small, both Ukraine and NATO allied countries do not accept the annexation of Crimea and there is no possibility of accepting the separation of the Donbass region from Ukraine.

Internally, Ukraine retaken the Kharkiv region and reached the border, now the fighting is moving towards Izium, which is close to Donbass and thus attacking the Russian rear in the region.

On the other hand, Russian forces practically control the Mariupol region, with the last resistance remaining at the Azostal where an attempt was made to evacuate wounded civilians and combatants (last night it was done),, in addition to Odessa, which becomes the next war objective, isolating Ukraine from access to the sea.

Also several Russian bulk carriers have appropriated grain from Ukraine and it is important to remember that one of the largest grain producers in the world is Ukraine and this further tightens the crisis situation in grain distribution around the world, the scenario points to an increase in grain as well. , in addition to the impact that is already happening on fuels.

The hope for peace is always renewed, despite the tense scenario, and there are forces fighting for peace.



Being and listening in hermeneutics

06 May

Anyone who has hearing can hear, but it is less and less common to listen carefully to the Other, this depends on the conception of Being that we intuitively have, which in more general terms means listening with the soul and the heart to what is being said.

The whole perspective of hermeneutical philosophy goes in this direction and it is not by chance that it has as a reference the work Being and Time by Heidegger, which among other things identifies language as the “house of being”, so to listen is to listen carefully to the Other, or in this case of hermeneutics: the text.

This development when it comes to text interpretation (but it can also be used more broadly for oral communication) is expressed as a hermeneutic circle and was more fully explained by Gadamer in his work “Truth and Method”.

Among the steps of hermeneutic “dialogue” is the recognition of preconceptions, not in the negative sense that is used in everyday life, but in the sense that we have a set of pre-established concepts when we start a reading or a conversation, the reading it is a listening of the author by the reader.

The immediacy and vicious circles of new media impede this circulation and accelerate the process that is called “swarm” by Byung-Chull Han or by “herd effect” in several authors who do not speak specifically of new media, but of dangers arising from processes such as war and denialism in the face of a Pandemic or dangers of various contaminations.

In the biblical perspective this means “my people listen to my voice and follow me” (Jn 10:27), in the current sense it is exactly the reading and interpretation of a text, and the hermeneutic methodology applies to this, it was even used in its beginning by Scheiermacher, even before Husserl.

In the biblical case, it is necessary to pay attention to the final part of the text (Jn, 10, 29) where we read that the Father (God) is the one who will snatch them and “no one will snatch them from the Father’s hand”, in this sense listen to it is also listening to the Holy Spirit through which we better understand decisions and paths adopted.



The peace of the pacific

29 Apr

There are several misconceptions about peace, some were pointed out by Kant such as pacts that hide future conflicts, the just revolt against totalitarian regimes, but there is no way to build peace without peaceful ones, the idea that you want peace, prepare for peace. war is a mistake, or with the violent, act as violent, etc. hide small and large wars.

Every exercise of power is asymmetrical, points out Byung-Chull Han (The Swarm), in the book that makes an essay exactly on the new media, and that says that there is only symmetry if there is respect.

So, respect for cultures, the diversity of opinions and ideas, of religious freedom, of different types of personal choices, of course that do not imply disrespect for the Other, is a starting point for peace, so there must be peaceful ones to build peace.

The idea of ​​more weapons, of more aggression that can intimidate opponents hides that there is no peaceful principle in these attitudes, that there is no respect as Chul Han asks, and for those peoples, countries and nations that have peaceful principles, such as Finland and India for example. , it is worrying to see warmongering attitudes.

On the other hand, Makron’s victory in France is an encouragement mainly due to the defeat of totalitarian thinking in the country that is the source of modern republican democracy.

Peace must also be the basis of any religious thought, admitting that there is something or someone superior should strip us of the pride of judging oneself superior to someone, some people, race or gender, but history shows that it was not always like that, I remember. here the Peace of Westphalia, which was a pact so that religions would not encourage hatred between states, with this the idea of ​​a secular state.

In several biblical passages Jesus makes the first greeting to his disciples: “Peace be with you”, of course he speaks of the peace of the peaceable, and in the verse of the beatitudes he says that they will be called “sons of God” (Mt 5,9) , that is, they are not Christians if they do not desire peace.

Also to his disciples, Jesus, who appears resurrected in his third appearance and asks Peter insistently (Jn 21:15-17): “After they had eaten, Jesus asked Simon Peter: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” And he said again to Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter said, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” The third time he asked Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” and Pedro gets sad and says “you know everything”.

Yes Jesus knew that even among religious it would be difficult to understand peace and unity.



Perpetual Peace concept

28 Apr

Perpetual Peace was Kant’s political proposal, in a way it is expressed in the liberal view of thought about peace, with some nuances in countries from the Soviet period, but as a rule, the normal there is the Roman vision of the pax romana that was the submission of enemies.

As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant ( Divide et impera, p. 39), in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.

The work To perpetual peace was written by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in 1795. The uniqueness of Kant’s contribution lies in his faith in a perpetual peace that is built because reason has more strength than power, “… reason, from the seat of the highest moral legislative power, condemns war as a juridical way and, on the other hand, makes the state of peace an immediate duty, which, however, cannot be established or guaranteed without a pact between peoples: – there must therefore be a federation of a special type, which can be called the federation of peace (foedus pacificum), which would be distinguished from the peace pact (pactum pacis), since the latter would try to end a war …” (KANT, 2008, p. 17-18).

But when would it then be fair to make war? What would be the limit of reason? Kant speaks first of revolt within a nation subjected to a tyrant: “Is revolt the legitimate means for a people to reject the oppressive power of the so-called tyrant [non titulo, sed exercitio talis (‘tyrant in the exercise of power, not in your denomination’)]? The rights of the people are forfeited and no injustice is done to them (the tyrant) through dethronement; in this respect there is no doubt. However, it is most unjust on the part of subjects to claim their right in this way, and they cannot complain of injustice if they are defeated in this struggle and then have to endure the most severe punishments” (Kant, 2008, p. 47).

As we saw in the previous post, for Kant, smart as snakes and false as doves, Machiavelli, in a very different way in his “Prince”, also spoke of dividing and ruling, a principle that is analyzed by Kant (. Divide et impera, p. 39, in this case it stops as a false freedom of opposing ideas when the supreme chief “disunites them and isolates them from the people”.

There are interesting points in his proposal divided into articles: a republican civil constitution (today there are peoples with other forms of government and which are not always tyrannies), a “federation of free nations” as the principle of hospitality (the problem of migrants today) and then he makes a series of “supplements” to perpetual peace, but basically it’s a defense of reason.

It also touches on the interesting point, as we have already said with regard to world wars, that peace must not be based on possibilities that can open new future wars.

Today, it is necessary to analyze the light of the original culture of the peoples, not only indigenous and various pre or post-enlightenment nations (where a certain form of reason prevails, remember the Greek State and Roman law), and also the economic, war and now also cyber.

Perpetual peace isn´t or any other form of lasting peace must look to a more humane and fraternal civilization, without which any argument for war is possible.

KANT, I. A paz perpétua. Trad. Artur Mourão. Portugal: Universidade da Beira Interior Covilhã, 2008


Reason, Belief and War 2

22 Apr

The relationship of science and belief in Bourdieu’s lesson: “The paradoxical enterprise that consists in using a position of authority to speak with authority, to teach a lesson, but a lesson of freedom … would be simply inconsequential, or even self-destructive , if the very ambition to make a science of belief did not presuppose belief in science” (Bourdieu, 1994, p. 62), can be better expressed by the principle of transdisciplinarity.

Establishes the Arrábida Transdisciplinarity Charter in one of its principles: “Considering that the contemporary rupture between an increasingly cumulative knowledge and an increasingly impoverished inner being leads to the rise of a new obscurantism, whose consequences, at the individual and social level, are incalculable”. (Freitas, Morin and Barsarab, 1994)

The idea of ​​science based on calculus (including economics) or the physics that makes it possible to advance in the mystery of the infinite universe, with wormholes, black holes and dark matter, cannot do without the mystery that is beyond what man has already conquered.

On the political side, the belief in the modern state that would replace God and could establish perpetual peace (Kant’s philosophical project) as well as science as the summit of “reason” has already shown its limits, as has the fundamentalist faith, which already was with the Pharisees in the time of life, land of Jesus, has limits of ignoring science, even wanting a science of belief, the paradox presented by Bourdieu.

Neither Kant’s perpetual peace nor advanced scientific studies made it possible to avoid war and the world is once again on the verge of a new humanitarian catastrophe, and it is also worth noting that religious fundamentalism cannot abolish it like the “Decalogue of Assisi for Peace” signed in Assisi on March 4, 2002, although they still defend it today.

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to be involved in the war against Rome, which will take place in the 70s of the Christian d.C., with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Holy Temple as predicted in the prophecies, not because Jesus wanted it, but because of the war that men wished.

After the Jewish Passover, and the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus which was our Passover, Jesus appears to the disciples and the apostle who did not believe Thomas was with them, the first greeting of Jesus is: “Peace be with you” (Mt 20, 21), breathes the Holy Spirit on them and told Thomas that he wanted material proofs of his resurrection: “Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and place it in my side. And do not disbelieve, but be faithful” (Mt 20,27) and happy will say those who believe without having seen.

Kant, I. (2008) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Project. trans. Arthur Mourao. Ed. University of Beira Interior. Portugal: Covilhã.

Freitas, L., Nicolescu, B. and Morin, E. (1994)Letter of Transdisciplinarity. Convent of Arrábida.


Reason, Belief and War

21 Apr

The evidence of two world wars, where rationality was challenged by the barbarities of the concentration camps, the atrocities committed, and the Hiroshima bomb is also included, give evidence that it is necessary to examine in depth what built what was called the reason passing through Kant’s critique of pure reason and the critique of practical reason.

At the opening of the book “Disenchantment of the World”, Pierre Bourdieu introduces his analysis of economic and temporal structures as follows: “Those who pose the ritual question of cultural obstacles to economic development are exclusively (i.e., abstractly) interested in “rationalization”. “of conducts, economics and describe as resistances, attributable only to cultural heritage (or, worse still, to one or another of its aspects, Islam for example), all omissions towards the abstract model of “rationality” such as defines economic theory.” (Bourdieu, 1979, pp. 11).

The recent history of our civilizational process develops the physical (and therefore only material) aspect and mathematical calculation, in particular the rationalizations of economic structures, when quoting Max Weber, the author explains: “the very character of the capitalist epoch [writes Max Weber] and – one at the root of the other – the importance of the theory of marginal utility (as well as of the whole theory of value) for the understanding of this epoch consists in that. just as the economic history of countless epochs in the past) has rightly been called “the history of the non-economic”. In the present conditions of life, the approximation of this theory and life was, is, and asks to judge, it will be bigger and bigger and will have to determine the destiny of more and more ample strata of humanity.” (Bourdieu, 1979, pp. 17).

His analysis is too extensive and almost complete (I will explain later) to be summarized here, but the aspect that interests us of the “non-economic” cultural cosmovision, which is that of belief and can be explained in a sentence of his about how he sees the relationship of science and belief: “The paradoxical enterprise that consists in using a position of authority to speak with authority, to teach a lesson, but a lesson in freedom … would be simply inconsequential, or even self-destructive, if ambition itself of making a science of belief did not presuppose belief in science” (Bourdieu, (1994, p. 62), which means that it is necessary to combine reason and belief.

The current war involves these economic (and ideological beliefs, which include religious beliefs), and it is thus neither a practical nor a theoretical reason, peace is possible if we limit beliefs to the common principle of defending peace for the civilizing process (already that the concept of progress is also a belief in a certain sense of “economic history”).

Bourdieu, P. (1979) O desencantamento do mundo: as estruturas econômicas e estruturas temporais. Trad. Silvia Mazza. Brazil, São Paulo: Editora perspectiva.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1994). Lições de aula. (Lessons from the class). Brazil_ São Paulo: Ática, 1994.




The narrative of totalitarianism

06 Apr

It is not just about the war that is the apex of totalitarian action, the attempt to submit peoples and governments to a unilateral truth, to a way of seeing the world that despises others and more than making a history of authoritarianism, it is necessary to understand its origins. and its narrative.

This is how Hannah Arendt faced the issue when she wrote in 1951 “The origins of totalitarianism”, she seemed convinced that after the end of the second world war the problem did not end there, there she talks about hell, the nightmare, the Metamorphosis of Kafda, the onion and even the ugliness of an omelet, among so many other things, when the stories of Auschwitz reached their hands.

When trying to describe the totalitarian experience, the dilemma Arendt faced was that this experience could not be explained, not by political philosophy or traditional concepts, it is not as the culmination of a process of developing something from a past.

I remember a striking sentence by Lygia Fagundes Telles, who died these days when she would have turned 99 on April 16, wrote: “There is no coherence to the mystery or logic to the absurd”, dictators and their narratives only have logic in systematic propaganda, and in a cheerleading than other fanatics who support him and identify with him.

This form of narrative that Arendt wrote found opposition in a contemporary such as Voegelin to which she replied: “I did not write a history of totalitarianism, but an analysis in historical terms of the elements that crystallized in totalitarianism” (ARENDT, 2007, p. 403) ).

He also wrote in the “Crisis of the Republic”, that the first fundamental difference between totalitarianism and the other categories present in history is the fact that totalitarian terror “turns not only against its enemies, but also against its friends and defenders”. “; a second difference would be its radicality, which makes it capable of eliminating not only the freedom of action of individuals as tyrannies did through political isolation., eliminating not only opponents but also unreliable allies, there is a clear parallel in the current war.

In her note number 81, Arendt wrote: “The total number of Russians killed during the four years of war is estimated at between 12 and 21 million. In just one year, Stalin exterminated around 8 million people in Ukraine alone. See Communism in action, U.S. Government, Washington, 1946, House Document No. 754, pp. 140-1”, again the similarity with the current War is not by chance, and after Butcha these days Mariupol (photo) will be able to live a similar drama.

The last topic of Arendt’s book is: “Ideology and terror: a new form of government”, anyone interested in avoiding totalitarianism just read it, it is likely that someone will become aware of this terror.

ARENDT, H. (2007) Origins of Totalitarianism. trans. Roberto Raposo. São Paulo, Brazil: Companhia das Letras (in portuguese).



On War and Blindness

23 Feb

It is always blind or just egocentric that inability to look at the Other, they want your attention just to demand their gifts and accomplishments, so they are egocentric, but social and cultural blindness is broader, in it lies the inability to accept different cultures and peoples, they say they do not constitute a relevant group or do not have an advanced culture, where the issue of advancement depends only on the referential, the most common in both cases is to claim the other’s gaze on themselves, without there being reciprocal.

The essay on blindness by José Saramago, which we have already posted here, talks about this social blindness seen as a virus that spreads and begins to blind everyone, and which was turned into a film by Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles, with a screenplay by Don McKellar, and we call it our post-essay of Intermittencies of Death, another essay by Saramago.

Camus also described in his novel The Plague, about a disease that hit his native country (he was Algerian) and that saw that there comes a time when the truth seems to offend everyone, even the once sensible: “but there comes a time in the story in which anyone who dares to say that two and two make four is punished with death” because it is “an idea that may make you laugh, but the only way to fight the plague is honesty”, this forgotten and even ironic virtue nowadays.

Camus says that overcoming fear and pain “I understood that all the misfortune of men came from not having a clear language. So I decided to speak and act clearly, to put myself on the right path”, this implies not only wisdom and courage, but also overcoming human blindness.

In a more forceful passage the author will say: “Men are more good than bad, and in fact that is not the point. But they are more or less ignorant, and this is what is called virtue or vice, the most desperate vice being that of ignorance, which thinks it knows everything and then authorizes itself to kill”, but then there is hatred and war.

This seems to be a path of no return that we are walking, not just on the lit fuse in Ukraine and Russia, but in all humanity, the blindness of the time of the wars seems to have returned in full and everyone is pointing the finger at each other, and Karl Klaus warned journalists who were also riding the wave: “War, at first, is the hope that we will get along well; then there is the expectation that the other will get screwed; then, the satisfaction of seeing that the other did not do well; and finally, the surprise of seeing that everyone was screwed.

The Bible also does not lack this metaphor: the blind Bartimaeus who begs for sight, for the healing of the man born blind (incredible because he did not have a cognitive system to see) and went to wash himself in the pool of Siloam and the two blind men of Galilee, is It is clear to most theologians that this cure is to see the truth that men refuse to see: Love and Peace.

The regional and national polarizations are gradually becoming global and the feeling that the other is going to “get screwed” is the growing and pure blindness, we will all get screwed.