*******************
PHILOSOPHICAL
FRAGMENTS
FRAGMENTOS
FILOSÓFICOS
*******************
A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW ABOUT THE LANGUAGE
Certainly,
we can say that there is something above the language. Concepts are
examples. The word “company” has the same meaning in Portuguese and in
English.
The
understanding process (of meaning) works with abstract forms that
belongs to an ideal world (as Plato said with his Form’s Theory, by
which there’s a Perfect World that is reproduced, of a imperfect way,
in the Material World and concepts have importance, precisely, because
they are in that ideal and formal dimension).
This
is why science and religion are possible. The first because the concept
has the same value in any place of the material world, the religion
because the notion of God also needs the universality of the ideal
dimension. Is good to remember that the concepts of God in every
religion always have elements like “omnipresent”, “omnipotent”…always
something absolute (that is the opposite of particularity).
And the general culture, on the side of science and religion (that is a specific, strict, culture), is too above the language. The language is created and modified by the culture.
But
it is simple to verify that the language is necessary, even considering
the existence of things above. Without language, we cannot talk, and,
consequently, we can not take decisions. Without power to take
decisions, society cannot exist. Without society, there’s no science
neither any kind of culture.
RDC. 07.06.2008. ArticlesBase. PDF. FLASH.
________________________
SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Even
in a globalized world, is not difficult to check the necessity of the
sovereignty’s concept. The application of the criminal law and the
sovereign power of expulsion of individuals who enters illegally into
the borders of a State show this necessity.
However,
the applicability of the sovereign concept shall be seen in a
perspective not absolute because the own source of the concept. And is
possible to see this since the concept was structured by Bodin and
Hobbes, what happened only after the long maturation of disputes
between the secular power and temporal power in the Middle Ages.
The
sovereign power is established, basically, to protect individuals,
residing its source in this protection. Thus, your use needs to respect
the human rights, and not matter if they are thought by the rational
aspect or the historical aspect.
With
regard to the rational aspect, we can say that the relation between the
natural law (essential to ensure what we called human rights) and the
civil law is of mutualism, i.e., one law depends of the other law to
enforce its purpose.
For
example, if by one side, the judge only applies a civil law effectively
when does in a fair way between the litigation parts, being this way of
application of the civil law a commandment dictated by our reason, by
the other side, the necessity of any person has a impartial trial only
can be, in fact, satisfied by a civil law established and guaranteed by
a sovereign power.
Already
in relation to the historical aspect, the situation of stateless people
at the beginning of the twentieth century shows us that it is
impossible to guarantee human rights (envisioned by the rationalist
view or by the view of historical assertion view) without guaranteeing
the right of citizenship.
Based
on these dialectic concepts between human rights and sovereignty, it is
reasonable to conclude that who take decisions based on the sovereign
power is strictly prohibited to not taking into consideration the human
rights, failing which, at worst, can not require compliance with its
decision, not permitting, in this way, the own use of sovereignty.
RDC.
October, 2008. ArticlesBase and WebArtigos. PDF. FLASH.
________________________
ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OLD PEOPLE?
When
we are children, we don’t have any kind of natural protection and,
unlike the others animals, we need to stay with our parents for many
years, what, into the contemporary society, is, basically, the
necessary time until we can have money to live by ourselves.
This
fact shows us the necessity of the whole society take care of old
people and, precisely, show the similarity between old people with the
children.
In
the same way which we do not have conditions to be guided by our own
understanding and physical conditions in the firsts ages, the old age
takes away from us any intellectual and corporal capacity’s species
that we have of be conduced by ourselves. By losing these capabilities
we lose the independence into the contemporary society because,
basically, we lose the production’s capacity that is required by the
market. Consequently, we lose our income.
This
is the mechanism that justifies the Social Security against old age and
that shows us the importance which the material conditions has, not
just for the development of our natural mental and corporal
potentialities, but, also, has for minimize the losses of these
potentialities into old age.
By
an ethical point of view, it is possible to say that the maximum “doing
to others, as we would be done to us”, a conduct’s prescription
existing in all the religions and defended by some philosophers (as
Hobbes into Leviathan, Part II, Chapter XVII*), underwrite the
responsible that the society need has for the old people. A good
example of this ethical conduct is a video on the Internet that shows a son (which is adult and has serious physical problems) be,
literally, carried by his father in a competition of triathlon **.
For
last, we can say that the importance of life’s experience that the old
people has is very significance for we construct the future, at least,
without repeat the errors of the past.
So, yes, we are responsible for the old people.
RDC. August, 2008. PDF (english / português). FLASH.
* “For the Lawes of Nature (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy, and (in
sume) doing to others, as wee would be do to,) of themselves, without
the terrour of some Power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary
to our naturall Passions, that carry us to Partiality, Pride, Revenge,
and the like”. HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan. Part II. Chapter XVII.
________________________
BIRTH AND DEATH AS MEASURE OF THE TIME
1. MANKIND. HUMAN NATURE. The most deep experiences that a human being can have are related with this two extreme situations: birth and death. Every experience that is between birth and death is life. Birth, death and life are constituted by: happiness (acquisition of feelings); pleasure (acquisition of sensation); sorrow (lost of the object that causes happiness); physical pain (lost of body potentiality).
2. PHYSICS. TIME-SPACE. By the observation of the human nature, we can say that the time for the human beings is binary: operate such as a pendulum, in which each extremity (birth and death) explicit the metric of the time. As the metric also constitute the space, space and time are in a relationship of mutual dependence (you, reader, can count a distance of your birthday, that we call a period of time).
3. PHYSICS AND MANKIND. PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. Our present experience depends of this relation time-space to happens. Such as depends the past (which just exist into our mind). The intimacy that make us feel happiness or sorrow is made of and by experience in time and space. The fact that we only feel sorrow, and even pain, by the death of someone close to us, and not any human being that we never live with, is the prove of this. And also depends of this relation time-space the future, that, by the past experiences, is given to us as possible perspective only. When the human being discover the death, born a powerful question, that will put the possibility of the future in action: “What do I want to do until my death?”; or “What do I want to do in my life?”. Happiness, pleasure, sorrow and physical pain will be results, wanted or not, of the answer.
RDC. 01.24.2009. PDF (english / português). FLASH.
________________________
|
|
> to know when this Site is updated
> para saber quando este Site é atualizado
|
|
|