Online or on Paper
"Philosophy | Western" |
|---|
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
(the transcript of a 5 hours video-course) |
|---|
|
|---|
“ Nature, Science, Religion, Reason, Faith, Causality, Causation, Dialectics, Movement, Time, Space, Impermanence/Permanency, Finite/Infinite, Self, Identity, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Technology. ” |
|---|
-------------------------------------------------------
Notice: the texts which follows are a transcript of video-lectures; it was chosen to leave the written as it was spoken, not respecting the traditional way of writing. The reason of the choice is that the flow of rationality is different when we speak than when we write. The text is like the subtitles.
| index ^
α | Alpha
1 - Science + Commercial Secrecy = Religion
...so let's think about Science and the relation of Science with Commercial Secrecy and Religion...so when we think about Science...right?...plus Commercial Secrecy, or commercial confidentiality...Science plus Commercial Confidentiality (commercial secrecy, industrial secrecy) is equal Religion...Religion...pay attention on this: when we talk about Commercial Confidentiality you are talking about Faith, right?...Or Belief...so...for example, we don't have access to a software and we need believing [to believe] in the word of the Corporation that developed this software; we need trust then that anything wrong will happens with our microphones or video cameras...right?...They will respect us...so if there is a commercial secrecy no one can see the code, the source of the software, as well as when we have a vaccine, for example, a remedy and there is a patent on that technology, we don't know how the remedy was [totally] built...so this is not Open Knowledge and when we don't have open knowledge we have Faith...we have Belief...right?...so we can think: why they seeing a global pandemic...has patents? let's break these patents...right?...so everyone can see how it's made and the liability of the pharmaceuticals are better established with an open knowledge...right?...so, when Science and when we talk about Science we talk about Reason right?...Reason...so we also can think: a Faith on Reason...right?...we have Faith on Reason because Science is a lot of Hypothetical Thinking that is true until someone refute that...right?...so it's a truth that is determined in a space and a time and can change...right?...so a lot of persons have Faith in the Reason, and Religion also have Reason because when we think on the sacred...considerate books, on a lot of religions we can find Moral Rules, Juridical Rules, right?...so, concerning the Juridical Science you can find Reason in Religion... right?...so and if we take the Religion and change this signal to minus... Minus what? The Faith...we have [as a result] Science...right?...so let's come back here: Reason-Religion - it's also important we think that there is an Interpretation of this Reason; these Juridical and Moral Rules...so...Interpretation and if we think about a judge; when the judge - in a judicial system - right?...will apply the jurisdiction...he will make [do] the interpretation of the prove...evidence so...a judge will interpretate [interpret] the evidence and this Prove will works as a Reason for a Conviction that is Faith...so you can understand that: Science and Religion, both works with Faith and Reason...right?… * In a process of patent, part of the knowledge came to public, but can not be used by third parties in a commercial way - this is more related with the issue of the private/public property. And yes, we can contest the video saying that the process of patent is on the side of open knowledge. The aim of the video is to provoke and start to show the problem of the Secrecy in Science/Technology, that can occur in a public or private sphere, and, at the end, is in all the society the issue of ignorance and trust.
index ^ || 2 - Science, Religion, Causality
So let's start talking again about Science and Religion, the difference among Science and Religion and the similarities...right?...so when we think about the doubt, the Doubt is the Question, is the natural way for Science, as well as the Faith, the Belief, is the natural way for Religion but pay attention on this: Science and Religion both depends of causality. What is causality? ...everything has a cause...right?...from a cause we have an effect okay...Causality…so if we will...we can put here...Science...Religion, right?...Science and Religion both...causality...we can find causality in Reason as well as in Faith, or Belief...right?...so here we have the side of Science and the Religion...causality Science is always looking for the causes of the natural phenomena...right?...or the mental phenomenon. What is the cause, the root cause, the necessary cause, and what was the first cause?...right? The cause that cause itself...well this is the limit, this is extreme...so here we have a problem to be solved and Religion will solve this problem...considering both possibilities if we think on two of...the most biggest religions today: that is Christianity and the ...Islam...right? Islamism...so Christianity: we have the creation, there is a cause for the world... world...for the man and the woman...there's a cause, God is this cause...right?...according to Christianity or if we think in the Islamism: we can think that the Absolute is that was never generated and never generates [112ª Surata]...so we can find in these two monotheist religions right?...concepts that use the Causality Principle...so again to the side of Science or thinking in Philosophy...Descartes: the constant doubt...right?...the side of Science and you can go to the Greeks and think not only in Descartes, in the Modernity, but also in the Greeks... we can think about Socrates...right?...so...we need always put the Doubt as the way, the Question as the way for the Science go further and, at the same time, we can think that in Religion we do the same thing...right? Why we do the same thing? Because every time there is a Doubt on the Faith and the Sacred...considerate Sacred books will give a solution: the Faith...faith...the Belief...so you have Doubt, but you cannot have Doubt on the Belief, on the Faith... so...being the Science, being the Religion...we always have the problem of Causality. What was the first cause? For Science...ow, the Big Bang...no...there's other theories also...so we also can think that the Universe is an eternity element...right? Universe already [ever] exists...so...and there's Physicists that think in this way right?...and not in a way that...well, there is a Creation, there is a moment, there is a Singularity and at the side of this, the Religion... we have the both religions, like Christianity and Islamism talking about Creation and the Eternity...but pay attention: causality, Causality is always present in anything, be Science, be Religion...Science and Religion are ways to try to explain the world for the human being...right?...and both needs the Principle of Causality as the first question...What is the Universe? Or: where I came from? Or: what is the fucking life? What is...what this means: life, human life?...so...a lot of questions...When you die you go for some place, or not? You always are thinking the causality...right?... the causality principle is always in the doubts, in the questions, and in the faith, in the belief...right?...so we need always having [have] in mind that Science and Religion are not so different, right?...
index ^ || 3 - From causality to dialectics
Let's again on Causality...let's think on Causality because when...we can understand that Religion as well as Science works with the causative principle...let's investigates this principle...What is causality? Every effect has a previous cause...right? Every cause has an effect but: one effect have a lot of causes?...Yes... How can I...how can I discover what is the necessary cause or the strongest cause or the main cause? or better: What is the first cause of all the other causes?... and here we are again in the limit of the Science and the Religion...but, of course, if every thing has a cause, we are talking about time...What is the cause of the present? The past...but the past exists? So we can think that all the Universe is changing so when I do this movement everything do a kind of movement...so there's a picture; there's one moment and again one moment, and again one moment, for all the persons...right?...My action is able to change the Universe...Is my action able to change the Universe? because if this is true it's also true that all the actions happens once, in a moment...so the Present is the result...is the result of all actions, of all humans...and all actions of the planets, the stars...so, when you move something in another place of the Universe this will change at the same moment or will not change; but will be part of that moment...right?...so if we think about time and Creation, and time and Eternity...this time is a circle, or it's a line with a beginning, with an end...so...this question...these questions on causality start to open a way in Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology...right?… so...causation, causality...if everything happens in a moment, if Past it's our memory, if Future is the same of hypothesis...hypothesis...if the Present is the only thing that is Real and present are[is] a Moment so we are talking about the essence of the world, right? We are talking about what go further of the Physics...inside the being... we are talking about the essence of the being...one moment, and after another moment...so we also can think that the World is something like 1 and 0, or True and False or Exists, and do not Exist...I think that is...this...well, I do not know...the correct symbol...but the idea is: everything is what exists, nothing it is only a name...it is just a name the truth is everything that exists, the present, the moment...the non-existence is the part of the process...so we are talking about causality, but we are in the way that the arrival point is dialectics...right? we are talking about Dialects...we are talking about something that exists and something that do not exist and this movement as the movement of life...right? so coming back: in the beginning we are talking about the difference of Science and Religion and the similarities...similarities are in a greater number than differences...right? Reason and Faith, Causality and now Dialectics, because if you pay attention we are talking about everything and nothing; we are talking about God and no-God, we are talking about Everything and Nothing...we are in the field of [the] Dialects when we go looking for causality...right? What is the cause? What is the cause? We start to think: well, maybe there is no first cause, there is eternity and, maybe, causality is just a movement of dialectics...Why not?
index ^ || 4 - Causality, Dialectics, Movement
So the effect...the effect is the negation, in a dialectic sense, of the cause. When the effect exist, if you get out the cause [than] the effect do not exist...so it's a kind of opposition...right? think about Heraclitus...Heraclitus...Heraclitus in a river, when you go inside the river, for a second time, or if you stay inside the river, you are not the same, the river, the water, is not the same. What is the same? the margin of the river...right? So we are talking about the difference and the identity; you are talking about the existence and not existence; we are talking about Movements…
index ^ || 5 - Aristotle, Modern Science, Causality
Well...we were talking about Causality, Dialects and Movement...when we think [on] movement...of course, it's difficult you imagine some situation that you do not related...the movement with Time and Space...right? Time: we already talked about...I am, I was, I will be the Real is the Present What I want to be if I live in this side? [the Future] psychologically, I will be a person with Anxiety at the side of the Past: if I'm related with the past I will suffer with...let's say......with roots you cannot fly...so you live with Depression if you are in the side of the Past...so the only thing that exist is...is the Present...we are talking about the Time...and the Space. What we can say about the Space? Well......we can have a virtual space; we can have a physical space...and the movement happens in the time and in the space. When it happens? Where it happens? It's like if time and space are conditioning... are Conditions of our Structure of Thinking... so...let's come back to causality, dialects, movement, time and space. We are talking about Causality. We can think that this object has a cause...or: we can think that this object can have many causes...right?...like Aristotle, in the Ancient Philosophy...so there's a Material Cause, there's a Formal Cause...that works together in the Being...right? but this is the Ancient Philosophy...in the Greeks thinking about Episteme (Ancient Greek: ἐπιστήμη)...the knowledge...right?...when we think about Science and Modernity...for example, Thomas Hobbes will deny Aristotle...for the Science in Modernity doesn't matter if an object has... if a substance...has many causes...right? And Movement, in the Ancient Philosophy, will be the Act...right? one of the Causes...when...or...what are in Potency become in Act. and in Modernity does not it matter if this object was caused by a material and a formal thing...no, it doesn't matter. What matters in the Scientific Method of Modernity is the relation among the objects...right? It's the relation among the objects...and causality is related with the movement...right? You have...you have power...if you have power, you have movement, you have liberty, you have freedom there is a relation among the sovereignty...right?...and the citizen, for example...so what matters is the relation among the objects, instead of the Ancient Philosophy...that are[is] concerned with the Being...right? So it's our interest we pay attention that [if] we are talking about the essence of the being we need to think on causality, in the Ancient Philosophy. We want to talk about this Scientific Method of Modernity? We are talking about causality also...among objects...right? so...pay attention on this: doesn't matter the approach...right? Does not matter the approach concerning knowledge...in the Ancient Philosophy or in the Modernity...doesn't matter...one thing that it's always present is causality...so we need think: What is causality?...right? Determinism, Movement....but causality also, concerning the Greek understanding of Aristo...Aristotle, for example...right?...A Being that is the result of many causes...Again: we are talking about Causality...when we look to the Death...to the image that we have about the Death, in our minds, we think about Causality...right?...
index ^ || 6 - The Value of Philosophy
So let me try to explain what I'm doing in these last videos...it's very common that lawyers, judges, prosecutors, in the Juridical area......or: it's very common that engineers, mathematicians...physicists......or: It is very common that scientists...Why I am naming these categories? Because it's very common that each of this [these] professional categories do not think about the essence of the objects that, in the daily lives, they need to deal. For example: lawyers, judges and prosecutors shall to deal with the issue of justice...so, in a moment these persons shall to think about: what is justice?...right?...in the same meaning: physicists, they deal with the measuring of the world, the natural world...right?...but if you ask what is causality for a physicist, there is no good answer...in the same meaning: mathematicians...they calculate, computate, reckoning...all the time...but if you ask: what is computation? What is calculation?...for a mathematician...there is no good answer even in the daily life of a mathematician they use the numbers calculating. What is a number?...but...if you ask the essence of the objects that these professionals, in the daily lives, works every day... who think about this? Who think about justice? Who think about causality? Whom think about calculation? Whom think about ethics, politics, aesthetics...Philosophy...Philosophy is the human structure that permits a human being be analytical and critical...it is criticism, it is doubt...love for the knowledge...more than this: philosophy is questioning...right? Why we use the term philosophical degree? Philosophical degree...is the degree of knowledge that works with the essence of the objects that every day professionals work with...this is the Value of Philosophy...it's a huge value...
2021
ß | Beta
index ^ || 7 - Individuality is a dream. Physics, Chemistry, Biology
So let's talk again on Causality. Causality as the most important thing to think about Science, to think about Ethics, to think about the Juridical World. For example, you have someone that act in a wrong way, that is considered a wrong way. What is the effect of this? How can I bring responsibility, liability for this person... right? So here we have two things in this case: the Causality and the Self, that is another big issue on Philosophy...on Science: how can I discover the cause, the root cause, or the many causes of a disease, right? And when we think about Science, we think about basically physicists, right? The Chemistry...the chemistry...and the Biology. So, if we think that first we have the physicists, like Max Planck saying:...well, life is what's measurable, right? What we can metrify, measure...it's the small elements...in a physical point of view there is no difference among us, or among the objects, because all of us are atoms, right? Chemistry....when we think about Chemistry...do you know what is the difference, in the periodic table, among the elements? The atomic number....so Quality, maybe, can be an issue of Quantity. What is the difference among the chemistry elements? The atomic number, right? And Biology: our DNA, our genetic code...there is no difference, in a biological level, among us; I and You are the result of a sequence of A, C, G and T, right? So Science...this is the Basic Science...in this perspective, we have causality in all these areas, right? Well one thing is important to say: if the video that I saw it's not a deep fake, so Heidegger said a thing that is very important, very important....because this philosopher said: look, everyone today...(I think that was fifth...50 years ago, I don't know)...any person can operate a TV or a radio, but only a few persons knows how [works] the physical laws behind TV and radio...only a few...persons, only few specialists know this...so, what he's saying is that we live in a Society where we need Trust, right? Where we need the Trust Element, because you don't know how your computer works inside, the hardware, you need someone that is specialized in this issue; you don't know what happens inside your body, you need persons like physicians, physicists, biomedicals, medicals, right?...devices...so...we need trust in the other... we don't know what happens in that moment, but we need that service, for example, right? Again, the causality problem, right?...the causality problem...but let's come back; Max Planck said: life it is what is measurable, measurable, right? So we are talking now about Quantity, right? So from Physics we go to the Mathematician... of course, everyone thinks: no, let's start in the mathematician and we go to the physicist; no, let's do the opposite way. So we are talking about causality and causality...is related with a lot of human activities, including Religion, including Science, including the Juridical world, including the trust among the members of a society, right? The modern society, today. Now let's face another issue: if we...we are talking about causality, we are talking about also quantity, right? How we...What is the calculation idea? What is the notion of quantity? What means a number?...right? Because causality and effect...causality: we need measure all this [these] processes; or: a lot of causes, we need to understand a lot of causes...What is quantity? So these are hard questions, these are philosophical questions...that there is no correct answer. We think about causality, we think about quantity, right? We think about what is health, what is justice, what is aesthetics? This is the work, the job, of a philosopher. Let's come back to Heidegger. In this video he also says, say: Communists is a kind of religion; because communists believe in the results and the security of Science. In a way that is the same of Religion, it's a belief in the security and the results of Science. But pay attention: look to the World, to the Universe and inside your Body...so we are living in a World that we can count the things, we can see the things, we can hear the things...touch the things, right? This is the way that we acquire knowledge, a first kind of Knowledge, Information, Data from the World, right? And inside of our head we start to work with this information, and produce knowledge, according some persons and philosophers, not according others....okay......so...we need our Body and our Mind to produce a Knowledge, right?...this is very difficult because our body...[ continue in the next video ]
index ^ || 8 - Science and Socrates
Our body is something that is not precise, right? If you are sick the way that you feel the taste of the food change, right? For example, or you need a microscope to see a cell or you need the telescope to see the Universe. So the knowledge is something that demands our Body and our Mind, the structures of the mind that works with causality, for example...okay...but pay attention: Do you know how many stars exist? How many planets? What is the Space and the Time of the Universe? We are talking about Eternity. How many kilometers, how many meters of distance, there's between I and the Moon, and the Sun, right?…so we are very small and what we know about the Universe? We know almost anything about the Universe...this is the true...the truth...may be the only truth...that Socrates already said: I only know that I know nothing
index ^ || 9 - Socrates, Descartes, Hume
So from Socrates and the notion of the only thing that I know is that I know nothing about the Universe, right? From Socrates we can go to Descartes, because Descartes do not accept this...and Descartes will say: well, even...even if exists a God of evil that are building a fake World and put me inside this....so if everything that I see and listen, and taste, and smell...everything it's a lie...even in this situation there's something that I know, that is an absolute notion, it's a certainty that is:....cogito ergo suum...so if I have a doubt I have certain that I have the doubt. So even being everything fake, one security point to start a scientific...to looking for the truth...the first point: if I'm with a doubt; I'm in the process of doubt, it's because I exist...so..cogito ergo suum. But Hume do not accept this....and here we can think in the issue of the Self, right? What is the Self? In the beginning, in the other lecture, the self can be different according the scientific perspective, right? So we can be the Atoms for Physics, or we can be Elements for Chemistry...or we can be a sequence of A C T and G for Biology...What is the Self according a scientific perspective? And what is the Self according a philosophical perspective?...that will be putting the target against causality...because for Hume, the Experience is the key element...right? in a next video…
index ^ || 10 - Hume on causality - faith on causation
So let's come back to Hume...and the Causality issue on Philosophy and Sciences. Well, the first thing is: when we think about Hume, the experience is the key element to understand his philosophy; so we have a cause that generate an effect; Hume will think on this causality principle... right?...causality....and what he will say... look, there are two elements very important[s] in causality. Why? Because if we broke the implication that exists among these...those elements...these elements...right?...if we broke there is no...Contiguity; so one of the elements of causality, in a first perspective is Contiguity, right? What is contiguity? This is contiguity: ___________; but not this: __ __ __, right?...so contiguity, another important element on the causality notion: Necessary Connection, right? What is necessary connection? And here we will enter in another issue that is: we are thinking two separated objects, one is cause, other is effect... Why this [Effect] is necessarily the effect of this [Cause]...?...It's a question...so one kind of philosophers will say: the cause and the effect are in the same moment; so, the first cause will cause itself, this is one argument...and Hume will say: this is not valid, because our experience do not show this to us. Or another issue: how can something exists from nothing? So, if you have an effect is it possible this effect coming from nothing? So...usually at the site of Contiguity we have the Necessary Connection. But what Hume will say about these two elements? Well, this is all the results of Memories. Why? Because...and here is an important notion: we are talking about Impression, right? Impression that we receive...that our body can feel...impressions in our mind also...So, we are talking about Impression and when this becomes regularly so we think that because something happens, a lot of time, we start to think that this implication is a necessary thing. So we are talking that the causality is a result of our repeated Experience, right?...that show to us what? A Constant Conjunction. This is what causality is for Hume; so we have a new vision here, right? Because...and he... and this is a very difficult point. Why? Because if Causality is a result of Constant Conjunction...right? Memories, Impression...so, what is the Self? ...this is an open issue yet: what is the self for Hume? What is the cause of the Self? Because if the causality is experienced...what is the Self?
index ^ || 11 - Skepticism against the Self_Identity - Hume...Hume...Hume....
Let's talk about Hume and his concept of Causality, his notion of causality, because if for Hume, David Hume, even the causality, the Causation, is a matter of Habit, so the Self (the Soul, the Substance, the Identity) also is the result of the Experience, right? What is[are] the notions of the Self? That is something that do not change; it's not variable; there's no interruption; it is an identity, right? When you take your picture, when you were a child; and when you take a picture and put the side...at the side...five years ago...and take another picture today...you will see that it's [they are] different persons, but because the things happens so fast, we cannot see that is the Experience that produce to us the Feeling of an Identity; so the Memory that the succession of events, of phenomenons...the Experience that show to us that among, between, these phenomenons there is a similarity, right? So this similarity, with the time, and the succession of the similarities, we change the Relation among objects to a notion of Identity, but this because our structure, right? So as well as we cannot say that causality is an 'a priori' sense, a sense that is before the experience, we cannot say this......so we also cannot say that the Self is something that has contiguity, right?...because it's not true. The self is only the result of our experience that make our different times be saw as a habit and this habit transform the relation among the separate events into something that feels like a movement, right? What is the movement? Think: a lot of pictures...the movement is when is so fast the way that these pictures came one from another that you feel that is movement. So causality, the self, is only the result of experience. When David Hume look inside him, looking for an identity, the only thing that he said that found was images of his memory, right? So the self is an illusion for David Hume and this was so crucial, so...there is so many importance on this movement that David Hume did in the Philosophy that Immanuel Kant, one of the most famous philosophers, said about Hume: Hume wake me from the dogmatic dream; there is no self, you are only...you are only saying the same thing happens, or better saying: different things happens that has similarity among them, and how these things happens so fast, and how these things happens always, you think that there's some thing called identity, but there is no identity. And here a lot of persons will say [that] Hume is like a Buddhist, right?... in this meaning that there's no self; so we already talked in the other lectures about Christianity, Islamism and now we are talking about Buddhism; and at the side of the Religions we are talking about Science, right? Causality, Identity, that are concepts usually used in the Science...with Hume are being contested; and we are talking about Philosophy, right? We began with Socrates: I only know that I know nothing; we go to Descartes: 'cogito ergo suum', 'je pense donc je sui' and we go to Hume: there is no identity, there is no self, the causality is only the result of your experience, your habits. Next video: Kant
index ^ || 12 - Air, Anaximenes
"Air differs in essence in accordance with its rarity or density; When it is thinned it becomes fire, while when it is condensed it becomes wind, then cloud, when still more condensed it becomes water, then earth, then stones. Everything else comes from these." Anaximenes...a half millennium before Christ...Anaximenes
index ^ || 13 - Permanency/Impermanence, Finite/Infinite, Bruno, Heraclitus.
So we were talking about David Hume and the notion of causality; but it's important we think that when Hume attacks the causality principle saying that: look, everything is the result of habits...what David Hume is saying is that: we have the Impermanence of the things; and this is a big issue on the Philosophy, right? Why? Because permanency and impermanence...this issue...let's...let's use a philosopher before Hume that is called Giordano Bruno; we are in Modernity, yet...and I will read only one part of his text because we are talking about permanency and impermanence and this is related with the time; now let's use the same mechanism but related with the space; and concerning the space let's see what Giordano Bruno said...this is a Portuguese version of the book, I will translate to English..."if the world is finite and out of the world is the nothing, I ask: Where is the world? Where is the universe?"...so, also Giordano Bruno think that we have the permanency, or the impermanence?... right?...concerning time...or the infinite and the finite, finite, concerning [the] space; and let's come back in the Ancient Philosophy, we already talked about Heraclitus and the notion that the only thing that is permanent is the changing, right?...so...maybe a half of millennium before Christ, a little before Heraclitus, we have Anaxímenes saying that everything came from water [Air, not water]... so what we have here? A principle of changing...right? The constant changing of the things; so here we are talking about the permanence and impermanence; the finite and the infinite, right?...in the Modern Philosophy and in the Ancient Philosophy; this is an Introduction course to the philosophical way, to the philosophical path...so, what is important? ...we have some ways to study Philosophy...so we can choose a philosopher, and we shall do this, or some philosophers to study this Author, this Thinker, in a deep way, in a vertical way; so how this Author works with all the big issues of Philosophy? And at the same time we should study in a horizontal way; so we need to see the History of Philosophy and some Key Subjects, right? So, in this Introduction to the Philosophical way, to the Philosophical Path, we are talking about Causality, Reason, Science, Faith, Skepticism, right?...in the Modern and in the Ancient Philosophy...let's go to Kant now…
index ^ || 14 - Kant - the transcendental subject
So let's go to Immanuel Kant, right? A big difference among the Ancient Philosophy and the Modernity, the Modern Philosophy, is the change of perspective concerning this: in the Ancient Philosophy you have a division between a Material World, Universe, and...Formal, Ideal World, Universe...when we go to the Modernity, this division is not only concerning the Being of objects, the Cosmos, the Universe, but also concerning...the Subject...so the Subject also is divided, right? So, in one side, we can have the Experience, and in the other side, the Reason, the Pure Reason, right? So when we come back to the Ancient Philosophy we think about Plato and his Theory of the Forms, right? So the highest degree of Being, in the Ancient Philosophy, in Plato, is what? The Ideal world, that we have copies, here. So when you take a book, there's an idea, a form of the book, of any book, right?...any book, any and every book......and here [in the opposite side] is the Sensitive; so the Copy has less Being than the Ideal, right?...okay. When we go to the Modernity we will have Kant developing a second division; not a division of the object, or an Ontology division, right?...but there is also a division of the Subject. So we have ways to use the Reason, right?...and we can think in this way: we have the world of Nature, right?...and we have the world of...we can say Noumenal...but we can say the world of the Ethics, right?...there's a division here and the way to understand each one of these universes will change according what we are looking for, so the laws concerning Ethics, and the laws concerning Nature, we use differently our Reason to understand, right? So one of the questions and here there is the connection with the Hume...is: there's a division also concerning the Experience and what is: do not need experience, a knowledge that do not need the experience... to be a knowledge...so we can have concerning the laws of Ethics...right?...the word of Ethics, 'a priori': before the experience; and 'a posteriori': or after the experience, with experience. What we have 'a priori'? Our structure, the structure of the Transcendental Subject, right?...so this structure will works with the...the elements of time and space, we have the structure of time and space as a law of our reason that do not need experience to be as our element, our structural element. So, one of the questions will be: is it possible a knowledge that do not need experience? Yes, it is possible, but to acquire this knowledge...you cannot use the reason in a wrong way; there is a correct way of the use of reason. So, at this side you will have the Practical Reason, right? As well as at this side, you will have a Theoretical Reason; if i use this reason (practical reason) to know this world (nature) will not works; if I use this reason (theoretical reason) to know this world (ethics) will not works; so the knowledge that is after the experience...the knowledge that is after the experience...here, in this side, Kant we[will] say: this is Anthropology...and the knowledge before, the 'a priori', before the experience...'a priori'...Latin...you will have Moral...Morality...You don't need experience to have a knowledge on an universal ethics...you don't need the experience, only to observes your own Reason...So, what is important to remember? That here, in this world before the experience, the Theoretical Reason also will have what? Notions of Time, Space, Quality and Quantity; these are the elements of our structure, rational structure…
index ^ || 15 - Meta-Physics, a priori, rationalism - Kant
And here we have the Physics...as well as here...Physics, right?...Experience...and here [ Ethics side ]...and here [ 'a priori' ] we have what?...what is beyond the Physics, or 'Meta'...that is a Greek word...Meta-physics Meta-physics...right? Pay attention on this: [practical reason, theoretical reason, ethics, a priori] this is the structure of the Subject in Kant, right?...but let's think about another issue, in the Kantian philosophy, that is: he classified two kinds of...Knowledge, right? So, Kant will say: there's a Knowledge that is Analytical...so you only explain what is inside the Subjects; and there is another kind of Judgment, that we do on the results of our sensitive side, that is the...Judgment that works with Synthesis, that adds something to the predicate, right?...and when we're thinking on pure science...here theoretical reason...we also can say the Pure Reason... ...what kind of knowledge we have here? Mathematics, right? What is mathematics for Kant? So it's important we understand that in Kantian philosophy the Mathematics it's not an Analytical Judgment, but it is ...extensive...Synthetic Judgment, because the concept of 7 is not inside here [3 + 4]...it's the result of adding things...so 1, 2, 3...1, 2, 3, 4...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...so you add things, concepts, notions...and what Kant wants to do is: there is another kind of knowledge so[as] pure like mathematics, or like the pure physics, in the practical side of the human being? Is it possible I find universal laws without the need of the experience? So what Kant is trying to do is: okay, we have the world, we use our subject, our structure of pure reason, to know this natural world, this physical world, this material world, experience that world, right?...but it's also important think if there is another world, that is the ethical world, right? The world of the practice. So our subject also has structures, such as a practical reason to work without experience, to find a so pure knowledge, like mathematics, in the practical world of the human beings? So he's trying to bring fundamentals to the Ethics that can state: one rule, ethical rule, works in any place of the world, anytime of the world...so we are talking about rationality...rationality. Kant said that Hume wake him from the dogmatic dream, because Hume show to Kant that it's necessary the experience to a first kind of knowledge; but Kant came and said: this is not enough; so let's come back to the Rationalism, right? So Kant consider the Experience, but he's mainly a Rationalist.
index ^ || 16 - Analytic Judgment and the Contradiction inside the Identity - Kant
So let's...study...more Kant and we already talked about the Subject and the Identity in the Hume's philosophy as an illusion, right? But here in Kant there's an important issue that is the things of the judgment, the two kinds of the judgment. We were talking about Kant and, of course, for sure, I used sometimes a not technical...in a technical meaning, inside the Kant's vocabulary, the word 'knowledge', right? One important thing to the study of philosophy is you understand what is the meaning that the philosopher wants to bring to that word; each philosopher builds a concept in key words...so, coming back, let's talk about the judgments and the subject in Kant...because Kant put the subject...the subject as the main point in the understanding of the universe; it is not anymore the Cosmos that regulates, but the human reason that regulates the knowledge...so the subject...okay...we have the Reason, the Pure Reason and the Practical Reason; the pure reason to know the natural world, and the practical reason to know...or better saying...to act in ethical world, right? And Kant will say that [there] is a division among Judgments that are Analytical and judgments that are Synthetic. What's the difference? So the human being proceed with judgments...analytical judgments...is...is it possible...so...the subject got an experience, right?...by the intuitive element of the human being, then this go to categorize it concerning time, space...we are talking about the pure reason as example, right? pure reason...and then the subject will produce knowledge, with Judgments. So the subject will proceed with a judgment. And the judgment can be Analytical and Synthetic. The Analytical Judgment works with the principle of Identity, the principle of Contradiction. Why? Because the judgment that is analytical...here's the subject...all you need is inside the subject; there is no predicate that you put...that you add here...if you add some predicate here so it's not anymore an analytical judgment, but a synthetical one. And what is the principle that operates here [in the analytical judgment]? The contradiction principle, that is: every object has extension, there is no object without extension; so you work with the presence and the not presence...it's a dialectics, right? So when we talk about the principle of Contradiction is because the Identity demands both…
index ^ || 17 - The impossibility to know on the Self - Kant
So let's talk about how can we think on the subject, because if the identity works with the contradiction principle...everything has an extension, anything has no extension...how works the subject, the psychological subject?...the Self in the Kantian philosophy...when I say the self I say the soul, the substance...we can use different words, right?...How works this? First thing: the subject is what rests when you take off the predicate, right? So when you take off the predicates you will see the limits and the subject is itself explained, right? When you take off the predicate, what rests, what remains? What remains is this subject. So the first thing in a theory of knowledge, because what Kant is doing is a Gnosiology - how it's possible the knowledge, the understanding. The knowledge is something that works with relations, right? Subject and a lot of predicates; get out the predicates what remains is the self. But it's not possible to know what is this self, what is the soul, what is the psychological self; it's not possible to know...only is possible you know that exists, because there is no experience in a being that is not living, right? And knowledge is the result of a process that use experience; without experience there is no knowledge; so in an ideal world, in 'a priori', before the experience world, we do not have experience, right? So it's impossible the knowledge. The self is what remains when there is no other predicate, there's no experience to explain the self. And here we come back to the Rationalism of the Descartes, but in a different way. Kant will say: the Rationalism of Descartes is concerned the external world, right?...the material world...and Kant also will say: in my perspective...in my rationalism...or in any perspective, the rationalism is also concerning inside the being, where there's no [sensitive] experience, right?...so it's a transcendental rationalism and Kant will do this movement to amplify the jurisdiction of rationalism in the history of philosophy; of course in the history of philosophy because philosophically the rationalism, the idealism, right?...demands what? Demands that there is the perpetual, the infinite, the not changing of the things, the form, the ideal. And when we come back to the Ancient Philosophy with Parmenides, that is considered the father of Metaphysics, it is possible to understanding the dialogues of Plato, because we know Parmenides by other thinkers, like Plato...and we will see that even the movement cannot exist in the idealism, in rationalism, right? So in our Introduction to the philosophical way where we are now? You're in a situation that by one side we show the Empirism[Empiricism], right?...the Skepticism, with Bacon [Hume], the Modernity, with Heraclitus in the Ancient Philosophy; and on this other side, we were talking about the Idealism, Kant, Parmenides, right?...between these two Descartes; so the Ancient Philosophers...Parmenides in the Plato's works; and in the Modern Philosophy, Descartes and a development with Kant. So what is the...our vision now? Our vision is: in an Ontology perspective, the being is divided, since the Ancient Philosophy, in an ideal world, a formal world, and a sensitive world, a not perfect world, right? Also, the...there's a division in the process to acquire knowledge, among the subject and among the objects, right? And Kant will bring us a new idea: also there is a division inside the subject, right?...in a pure reason, theoretical reason and even when we think in judgments...in an analytical judgment, that brings the contradiction principle and the...the idea, the notion of identity in Kant, we can saw that the being is divided; it's possible think a contradiction and our reason think in contradiction, right? It's perfect possible you defend arguments that the space is limited in finite, or that the space is infinite; you can think in these both senses, with good arguments; so the being can think the contradiction...okay...and this do not necessarily...shows that the nature has a contradiction; but it's how everything is divided...ontologically: the being and then in the copies, right?...in the Ancient Philosophy. In the Modernity, the subject and the object...the subject inside the object, because there is two kinds of reasons and if you use the ways of one reason to solve problems that only the other reason can solve, do not works. It's everything divided: ontology, gnosiology, epistemology...what will happens now?...so let's go from Kant to Hegel, that is the last big philosopher of the Rationalism, of the Idealism; better saying, in the Modern Philosophy.
index ^ || 18 - Parmenides. It is. It is impossible for anything not to be.
"Come now, I will tell thee - and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away - the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that "It is", and that it is impossible for anything "not to be", is the way of conviction, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that "It is not", and that something must needs not be - that, I tell thee, is a wholly untrustworthy path. For you cannot know what is not - that is impossible - nor utter it; For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be." Parmenides...Parmenides…
index ^ || 19 - Heraclitus - we are and are not.
"Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers. We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not." Heraclitus...Heraclitus... [ Greek: Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος—Hērákleitos ho Ephésios; c. 535 – c. 475 BCE]
index ^ || 20 - Hegel - what is real is rational, what is rational is real, Dialectics, Idealism
so let's keep talking about the German philosophers and especially talk about Hegel; so we came from Kant, and Kant said: it's impossible we have an experience in the cultural world, in the world of ethics, in the Noumenal world, right?...so Hegel do not accept this, because for Hegel we have an experience also in the...not material world; so it's an experience of the thoughts, right?...so let's imagine that this is the object, right?...the think, data, object...a subject...will see this object, right?...so here we can put the self, the subject. This is a first impression, a sensitive element, right?...so the first thing: this object became, inside the subject, a thought, right?...a thinking...okay...so we have here, [in] this side: objective objective...and here's subjective [in the other side] right?...so the thought permits me note that there's a world outside me and this is ...operates through a negation that determines. These are the first two moments, right? So the 'It' is 'It for' something. For what? For the subject; so it's for the subject and this subject will transform the thought in an object; and here we start with the experience that is not material, it's an experience in the thinking process, right?...and this will result in a synthesis, right?...of the object and the subject, the thought of the subject...and here you will have the thoughts on the thoughts, the thinking on the thinking, right?...so...'It'-'It for'...this is the object, this is the subject, this is the object plus the subject, right? So it's the same thing of the 'Same' and here we have what? The universality that brings together the results of the movement among object and subject, right? And this universality that brings together the particularity world together with the individual world, or the singularity; and here we have the universality, in a process of synthesis, right?...Synthesis...the Thesis and the Anti-Thesis and Syn-thesis, and here you have another moment, because the thought on the thought will became another object, right?...so here we will have...this as the first particularity, objectivity, right?... the thought...and here we will have experience inside the subject; so it's the 'It-for' the subject again, right?…but is also for the self,...for the self...and here you will have a third moment again, so you can see that there's a process, and this process it's like a spiral and this is why we can say that if Kant bring the rationalism to the extreme, what Hegel will do [is] bring the Rationalism to the Idealism in the meaning that the object and the subject will...we put together; so what is real is rational and what is rational is real. And we can think that this movement, this movement that is dialectics, right?...that demands a negation, a negative approach as something that determines the things. So the negation is not the nothing, but is something that is necessary to determination, right? And this negative that is used as a necessary element in the process of the Enlightenment, of the Reason, right?...becoming the Spirits, the 'Geist' of the times...the Spirit is the result of the Activity of the Reason and the Reason works with Negative Determinism in a Dialectic process, right? So what Hegel will do is put together...if we think in Ancient Philosophy...Parmenides and Heraclitus, right?...because for Parmenides the only thing is that 'It is'...it's impossible you know about 'not it is' and this is totally...related with the idea that the Real is Rational and Rational is Real as well as we will have together with Parmenides, of course Heraclitus, because the Dialectical Process already was...showed it to us by Heraclitus, right?...so at the same time the 'thing is' and 'is not' Hegel will bring together [Parmenides and Heraclitus]... What Hegel will do? The Absolute, the Absolute, the Idealism. He will bring together the Object and the Subject as the Same...Dialectics: what is Real is Rational what is Rational is Real.
index ^ || 21 - Knows yourself and you will know the Gods and the Universe
So where we are now in our Introduction to the Western Philosophical Way? We already talked about the Ancient Philosophy and the Modern Philosophy; we can think in the Ancient Philosophy some...some thinkers that we already talked about like: Anaximenes (maybe 586 – 526 BC)...Heraclitus (maybe 535 – c. 475 BC), Parmenides (maybe 530 a.C. — 460 a.C.), Socrates (maybe 470 – 399 BC), Plato (maybe 428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC) and Aristotle (maybe 384–322 BC) right? in the Ancient Philosophy and in the Modern Philosophy we already talked about: Giordano Bruno (maybe 1548 – 1600), Descartes (1596 – 1650), Hobbes (1588-1679), Hume (1711 – 1776), Kant (1724 - 1804)...and Hegel (1770-1831); of course, it's an overview on only an issue or other that these philosophers works with, right? And our subjects, our issues, in this Introduction to the Western Philosophy...we talked about: Cosmology, right? Ontology, right? Theory of Knowledge...of knowledge...Gnosiology, Epistemology (from Episteme - Ancient Greek: ἐπιστήμη), right?...that is knowledge...the opposite of the Greek word Doxa ('δόξα')...so we are talking about Science, Reason, that in the Ancient Philosophy you can say Logos (Ancient Greek: λόγος), right?...and also we were talking about Religion and Causality, as well as Subject and Object, right? So...and now? Let's keep going, but before we proceed in the Modernity...we have Schopenhauer here...and I want to talk a little about Schopenhauer because in another...in another Course we will talk about the Eastern Philosophy, an Initiation to Eastern Philosophy and Schopenhauer is one of the western philosophers that go to the Eastern to learn more...but let's keep our focus because Causality is a big problem to think about Reason, Religion, Philosophy...right?...and here there is a movement, right?...and the Subject will have more and more importance and Schopenhauer will say: the World is a Representation; the Science is the Connection among Representations, right? But before we go to Schopenhauer I want to only say a phrase of the Ancient Philosophy, that is in the Oracle of Delphi: know yourself, know Yourself and you will know the Gods and the Universe...of course, because if you cannot know about yourself, how can you know about anything different of yourself?
index ^ || 22 - About my books on Philosophy
My name is Rafael De Conti, i'm a philosopher and a lawyer here in Brazil and I will present to you my works on the past years concerning the philosophical field. So since I finished my bachelor on Philosophy and finished also a master on philosophy; a stricto sensu research on the University of Sao Paulo (USP), here in Brazil, i started to write in...freely...in a freeway a lot of issues, philosophical issues, and the results of these texts are in these books here...so we can see that there's an order, not in the development of the texts and the...and the thinking, but there is an order that i structured: first a book that i called 'Fragments', that is this book right?...here i talk about reason, freedom, creation, death, time, love, language, politics, God, rhetoric, truth, technology in texts that are more free, i do not necessarily refer to a philosopher, even that i use, of course, what i learned with the philosophers; but here is more authoral, it's more myself...a second book is 'Filosofia Antiga', that is concerning the Ancient Philosophy... i hope that i can translate this to English as soon as possible...and here we will have Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle and...i do not know how to say this word in English yet...but is Skepticism...Sextus Empiricus...the third book is philosophy and the modernity, Modern Philosophy, and here i will bring my research on the university and other texts concerning ethics, law, politics, nature and culture, freedom, power, justice, State, human and critics...of course, Modern Philosophy...so you will find here Hobbes, Kant, Hegel...Diderot, Rousseau, and others...and these three books...they are followed by the politics in Brazil; all these books are in Portuguese language, i hope to translate soon; but in politics in Brazil you will find issues like Brazil, culture, elections, politics in Brazil, strategic communication, technology, psychology, power, revolution...so it's about the political scenario here in Brazil; these first four books you also can find....there are pocket books... you also can find in this version, that is the result of these four books, but in another format, right?...and we have a second, second sphere that i works with sovereignty and human rights, right?...so here also: Diderot, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Arendt, Freud, History, War, Communism, Capitalism, Totalitarianism, Empire, Revolution, Politics, Law, Ethics, justice, Liberty and Power...so...Sovereignty and Human Rights; and after this we have the Legal Philosophy, legal philosophy: Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Kelsen...and the second sphere of the work that...how i said before is[are] these two books, right?...so the first one: Sovereignty and Human Rights and the second one Philosophy of Law, Legal Philosophy...and in this book of Legal Philosophy: Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Kelsen, Reale and I...Legal Philosophy in the Ancient Philosophy, in the Modern Philosophy and in the Contemporary Philosophy, right?...these two books are also in Portuguese and there is another version, these two books are inside...Philosophy 2, that is a book like this and ...a third sphere is concerning these three books, that together will constitute the Philosophy 3; i don't have the number two and three here now, this is the number one, but it's like this [Filosofia 1] the edition, right?...a standard edition in paperback; so this book: Education, Logic, Science and Technology, and Moral systems...in paperback so we can find here since issues on God to issues on Logic and Masons, right?...and Education...this other book is concerning my works in the Literary field, so some poems and tales, a lot of tales; it's also in Portuguese...all these books are in Portuguese, i hope that someday i can translate to English; and here in this book we can find the following literary texts...Estréia, Sala-Cofre, Confesso que cometi um crime, Tempo e Amor, a Morte da Morte, a Festa...e outros contos e poesias...and the last book is concerning Self-Knowledge...so...life and psychism, auto-knowledge and auto-development...here you will find...texts on philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis, Orientalism and the Eastern Philosophy, right?...self-knowledge, self-help, death, more sex, conditionings, right? So it's a book that is a self-knowledge book but with the perspective of a philosopher, right? And these three books together is[are] the edition philosophy number three [Filosofia 3], the standard edition...so, all these books are the result of my work on philosophy in the past two decades or since i [was] born, right?...and i did a First Version [Edition, 2012] of these books, but not in the Pocket Edition [2021], but in the standard one, so when i revised the text, when i revise i do not delete anything, i just add things, right?...even if i think that it's wrong, i explain why it's wrong, so the Second Edition [2016] i did this...and the books came with more texts and these are the result of the Third Edition [2021] so...from the First Edition...i don't know...maybe 10 years so it's the work of my life that i will developed until i die, simple as that...you are welcome to came and see the books, read the books, discuss the books; i will love discuss the issues of these books with the persons...so before i forget a last thing on my words, work...that is: you can find a part of the first editions [2012, 2016; only the books Filosofia 1 e 2] available in public domain...and the second edition [2016] i think that you also can find in public domain, but the third edition is one that has new texts, right?...and a revision of the past editions; this new edition [2021] yet is not in public domain, but you can find online, in my website to read online, or you can buy this in the Amazon of the United States
γ | Gamma
index ^ || 23 - The world as Will (that affirms and deny) and Representation, Schopenhauer before Freud
the World is my Representation...the World is My representation...pay attention on this phrase; Arthur Schopenhauer was the author. Representation...so Schopenhauer is a contemporaneous philosopher in the same time of Hegel, but Schopenhauer will say about Hegel that Hegel is junk, a false philosophy; but what we can bring from...from Hegel to start to understand Schopenhauer is: there's an experience inside the subject, right?...so this experience inside the Subject is the Representation, what exist, exists for the thinking; so the object of our perception, our sensitive structure, the object in our mind - this is the representation, right?...so the thing itself...it's impossible...to understand because the understanding for Kant is only the understanding of the nature, of the natural phenomenons; for Hegel there is also the experience of the cultural world, the mind, the thoughts, the experience of the thoughts; and Schopenhauer will say: we have the subject, the subject is what is different of the object; when this subject is finished starts the object; so the subject it's what remains when you get out the object, right? ...this subject as a structure and this structure will show that the causality, the time and the space are structures of the subject that know the world, right?...so the world is my representation...but representation of what?... how is this world that my reason will understand?...and Schopenhauer will remember: this world is the world of the constant change, the constant flow...and here we come back to the Ancient Philosophy because Schopenhauer will say: such as Heraclitus said, there is a constant flow; so the cause and effect are in superposition; there is no present for Schopenhauer, there is no future, there is no past; nor present, nor the present exists and Schopenhauer will say: the existence and perceptibility; the existence and the ability, the capacity to understand, to seek that exists an external world, are convertible terms, right? So such as the Eastern Wisdom of the Indian stated: existence and percebility are convertible terms; so this subject will work with the reason to understand this world that is in a constant flow, a constant change, right?...and the Science is what in this structure built by Schopenhauer? Science is only connections among representations, right? And the representations that we have about the world and the connections among these representations okay...but the phrase was: the world is My representation; so let's now analyze the 'my'... My refers to the 'Will'; in the masterpiece of Schopenhauer, 'The world as will and representation'...and this 'will'...when we take this 'will' and put as an object of the subject that are understanding something; so we bring the objectivation of the will...when we try to understand the self, Schopenhauer will say: the will of life affirms and, after, deny; so the will affirms in a positive way; you're looking for something and after, deny, because there is a satisfaction and the end of the will; so there is also a constant movement; and the causality in the Schopenhauer's philosophy will be the key element that will bring together, in the issue of Science, time and space, because Schopenhauer will state: everything's relative and it's impossible there's space without time and time without space; and causality show this to us; Why? Because it's necessary that you have time, for example, Arithmetics, and for Geometry you need space; you cannot think in an object without a space, a positioning; and the movement that is the activity, that is the causality, will bring together time and space; but everything is still changing and our reason, when try to understand this changing, will work with representation; and when we put our will as the object of our study, in our understanding, so this will is empty, because first affirms and then deny; i think that it's the origin of the later thinking of Freud, concerning Eros and Thanatos; the principle of life and the principle of death, both are with us. So Schopenhauer put the will as a main target, the world as will and representation, and states that this will affirms and after deny...affirms and after deny...so it's empty. Let's see what Nietzsche think about this...what Nietzsche will bring to us as a development of this subject that the Modernity put as the main focus, right?
index ^ || 24 - The connection time-space - Schopenhauer before Einstein
and before we leave Schopenhauer to Nietzsche i want to bring a passage of the 'World as will and representation'...this book is in Portuguese but i will translate to English...this passage: "the true essence of the reality is precisely simultaneity of many states; if the world exists existed only in the space, the world will be a solid, immovable, there not will be succession, neither changing, nor action; if we get out the action, the matter will be also get...get it out; if the world...exists only in the time, everything will be liquid; so there will not exist permanence, nor...neither superposition, nor simultaneity, and by consequence will not exist the time...will not exist the matter; so is the combination of time and space that result...results, that engenders, the matter, that is the possibility of simultaneous existence"...so, as we can see, maybe Schopenhauer brings some elements of the theory that Einstein developed in the last century, right?
index ^ || 25 - Childhood - to run or to comeback
- the Modernity going into the Contemporary Philosophy and before we proceed going to Nietzsche, let's remember in the...in this book of Schopenhauer ['World as will and representation'] he will say a first phrase: that is...a thinking of Rousseau..."get out...of your childhood, grow up, my friend, wake up!" ("Sors de l'enfance, ami, revéille-toi!")...Rousseau said this according Schopenhauer...we have Kant saying: the way to get out of the minority, of the childhood, is with the enlightenment ("aufklärung")...pay attention: Rousseau and Kant will see the childhood as a place that we need get out to wake up; and Nietzsche will say: our spirits need to pass by three transformations, right?...to wake up...first, we carry all the values, after we deny the values as lions, and in a third stage, such as the children, we bring new values; so pay attention on the difference: Rousseau, the mother of Rousseau died some days after the philosopher came to life; and the mother of Nietzsche take care of him when he [was] almost dead, right? So pay attention [to] the difference: for Rousseau it's necessary run from the childhood, and Nietzsche understand as a positive environment, that is the place of creation of new values. Let's see after Nietzsche...Freud…
index ^ || 26 - Encouragement for Beginners, Nietzsche
Encouragement for Beginners. "See the infant helpless creeping - Swine around it grunt swine-talk - Weeping always, naught but weeping; Will it ever learn to walk? Never fear! Just wait, I swear it; Soon to dance will be inclined; And this baby, when two legs bear it; Standing on its head you will find." Nietzsche...Nietzsche...(The Joyful Wisdom - Gaya Scienza)
index ^ || 27 - Nietzsche - Science as only the description (and no explanation) of the both elements of causality.
So let's proceed with Nietzsche, right? What Nietzsche will do is: observes the will that Schopenhauer were talking about...right?… and the will for Nietzsche is not something empty, right?...it's famous the will of power; but let's come first understand what is cause an[d] effect for Nietzsche...well, the first thing: all these [cause and effect] are images inside us...representation, right?...and this representation do not explain anything; the Science only describe things and the idea of that one thing follows another do not explain anything, right?...do not explain anything...What is the goal of the Science?... the purpose of the science?...the purpose of the Science for Nietzsche is understood in the following meaning: we have what is pleasure and what is pain, right?...so Nietzsche will observes that it's not separable elements; when we have happiness we have also the pain, right?...more happiness more pain; less happiness less pain; this is why Nietzsche will say: the stoics will observes this balance; so less happiness, less pain; more happiness, more pain; and the Science can be used in the both meanings...so...when we are talking about Nietzsche we need having[have] in mind that the movement to get out of Modernity and enter in the Contemporary world is the movement inside to the subject, but it's also...in the Modernity...but it's also the observation that the will is the main peace in the structure, not the reason, right?...so this causality...cause and effect for Nietzsche do not explain anything, just describes...just describes…
index ^ || 28 - Knowledge as fear of the unknown. Nietzsche
and so in Nietzsche we have...a deduction that this effect came from this cause, right?...because...it's only a deduction, because it's impossible you explain this [what is between the cause and effect] you only describe this...the Chemistry transformations follows one to another and this connection it's only described that one came from another, do not explain...no one explain this...and what is...so we only make[do] a deduction, right?...that...about this connection on the constant change of the world; and the origin of our knowledge for Nietzsche is related with...what is familiar, right?...what is not strange; so it's related with our fear, our necessity to know and end an unfamiliar relation with the unknown - this is their origin: the fear as well as the necessity to bring this as a familiar knowledge…
index ^ || 29 - The thoughts are the shadows of our feelings. Nietzsche
The thoughts are the shadows of our feelings... The thoughts are the shadows of our feelings... Nietzsche
index ^ || 30 - Causality - we can not see the 'continuum'. Nietzsche
So let's come back to Nietzsche...and Nietzsche will say about the causality that, maybe, everything is just a 'continuum'...right?...maybe everything is a 'continuum'... and we only see parts of this 'continuum', right?...and we infer that there is a relation of cause and effect....so this is very important, right?...because when we think about the thoughts and the thinker… what we can see? That the world is so much more complex than the thinker think about...because, pay attention: what is the thought? What is a thinker? The thought is the shadow of our feelings, our sentimentals[sensations]... and the thinker...who is the thinker?...that one that takes the thing more simple than the things are...so pay attention on this: what is thought?...thought is the shadow of our feelings...so this is why Nietzsche destroy everything concerning, for example, Kant and Plato, because it's the same that we say: look Kant, the subject for you work with...works with a reason and this reason...this reason is nothing in relation to the will...this reason is...cannot see the 'continuum'; this reason only can see parts of this 'continuum'; so the...reality is so complex and the thinker is so simple, such as the reason...What Nietzsche will do when he says that they think, thinking is the shadow of our feelings?...is taking Kant and Plato and, at once, it takes the hammer and...this is Nietzsche...this is Nietzsche…
index ^ || 31 - 'Fundamentally it is just instinct','We also shall have our time'. Nietzsche
And Nietzsche will say that there's an advantage, right?...if you...are not a skeptical, because the skeptical...skepticism i'm talking about…suspend the judgment, right?...and who believes in the things affirms; the believer make mistakes, decide[s]; and here the constant flow is better saw by the person at this [other] side... so Nietzsche will say: for the human specie this [the believer side] was essential even i think that this is a junk
index ^ || 32 - The Logic from Illogical, a matter of survive. Nietzsche
And Nietzsche will say that the 'continuum' maybe is not like this [a line] but like this [a circle]...right? and we, only with our reason, see parts of this [dashed circle] and infers that there is a 'continuum'...we cannot see the 'continuum'...but when we say that this [the circle] is the 'continuum'...what came to our mind?…how logic, Nietzsche will ask, how logic appears in the human mind? and he start to develop this notion: well, maybe logic came from a[n] illogical sphere that is bigger, and logic is inside this...but when we pay attention on the Nature we see that the man who do not understand the difference between the food and the dangerous animal...will die...so what the nature did with us? The similar is equal to the identity. What is similar is equal, right? What is similar is equal...and because of this we survive as a specie because what is similar it is illogical, right?...and there is anything with identity; but the origin of logic is this process and when we start to think on the 'continuum' of Nietzsche we think that probably Nietzsche was a reader of Charles Darwin, right?...because in 'The Origin of Species'...let's see the name that Charles Darwin give to the Chapters of his book....Variation under Domestication......Variation under Nature...Struggle for Existence...Natural Selection...Laws of Variation...Instinct...so...when Nietzsche had born Charles Darwin was maybe with 40 years old and when we look to 'The Joyful Wisdom', or 'Gaya Science', we understand that for Nietzsche what are you doing in the past 10 generations? Eating, sleeping, defecating, reproducing...and what are you doing now? Eating, sleeping, going to the bedroom, reproduction…so...there is an instinct in the human being, right?...but...this has consequences because if everything is a result of this movement of the human specie...well...what Nietzsche will call the designers of the existence, the teachers of the object of existence, are all lying humans because the good and the evil, the useful and the not useful, all will be need to the movement of the specie...right?...so we have the a-morality and the tragedy, for Nietzsche, is when we take the human being, and not the specie,...and...the individual...and not the specie, the human specie, right?...so the tragedy is not in the nature, that do not have moral, right?...it is a-moral; there is no moral here, so there is no wrong and right, in this perspective, right?...and the tragedy start with Religions and Morals...and here we will have moral and immoral...not-moral this [amoral] is different from this [moral/immoral]...pay attention, right?…
index ^ || 33 - Amor Fati. Ame o Destino. Nietzsche
So both things are important because when you deny it's easily you understand the constant flow; and when you affirms you accept your destiny; so we are talking about 'Amor Fati'...right?...the variation of life is so big and Charles Darwin will analyze all this variation...how is it possible the evolution?... right?...with affirmation?...if you deny, okay, evolutions will not stop because of this, so 'Amor Fati' - Love your Destiny…
index ^ || 34 - Consciousness, as last and new improvement in the human, is weak. Nietzsche
Consciousness..."consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and, consequently, also the most unfinished and least powerful of these developments"; "...before a function is fully formed and matured it is a danger to the organism...all the better if it being than truly tyrannized over, consciousness is thus truly tyrannized over"; "it is thought that here is the quintessence of man, that which is enduring eternal, ultimate and most original in him! Consciousness is regarded as a fixed, given magnitude! It's growth and intermitences are denied! It is accepted as the 'unit of the organism'! - This ludicrous overvaluation and misconception of consciousness has as its result the great utility that a too rapid maturing of it has thereby been hindered". Nietzsche in 'The Joyful Wisdom'
index ^ || 35 - Unconsciousness, Instincts. Freud
Now Freud...let's remember that Kant...did...an anatomy of the subject and our structure, our logical structure...time, space...the structure of the subject to know the world, right?...so there is an experience in the nature and we use our subject structure, with the elements of time, space, to understand this; Hegel came and said: look, there is also an experience inside the subject, right?...there is an experience inside the subject...and Schopenhauer will say: stop Kant and Hegel, both are talking on only reason, reason, reason; of course that the world is[are] images and more than images the world is my representation...the will...so Schopenhauer will say: more than the reason there's the will; but this will in Schopenhauer is something like empty. Nietzsche will say: this will is stronger than we think, it's a will of power, it's affirmative will...so the reason, in the beginning of the Modernity, is the highest point; and in the end of Modernity, with Schopenhauer and the transition in... the ignition of Contemporary philosophy with Nietzsche...the will...is more than reason. And Freud came and start to do analysis of the mind; and our psychological structure is more than consciousness, right? Before Freud, let's remember what Nietzsche said in the...his book "For further than good and evil" ["Beyond good and evil"]...i will translate because this book is in Portuguese...Nietzsche will say: a think, a thought, came not when i want; so this subject is not the origin of the thought - this subject that is understood by a Kantian perspective, right? Freud will say: there are some phenomenons in our lives that show to us that there is something more than the consciousness, right?...the awareness...because when i dream there is no logic...time and space...it's not like the real world, right?...and sometimes i cannot understand why some thoughts came to my mind, why they appear in my mind... so Freud start to think: there's something more than the consciousness; and Freud was a scientist, so he will say: i describe things, i aggregate, right?...i separate, I make relations among the descriptions...and Science is like this, Freud will say...hypothesis, descriptions, demonstrations, about facts and ideas that everyone agrees in some undetermined point, right?...so we apply these methods of description, aggregating, understand relations, to the objects - and this is Science; and Freud will say: i will do this with instinct; What is instinct, if we apply a scientific method?...and Freud start to elaborate this notion: there's a stimulus, right?...and inside of this notion there's a kind of stimulus that are inside the subject - this is instinct; and the instinct is a kind of force that happens inside of us...and now the instinct shall have an end, an objective, an aim - that is the satisfaction, right?...and sometimes this do not happens; sometimes you have something that is a barrier to the instinct came from the unconsciousness to the consciousness; because, of course, we only know the unconsciousness in a consciousness state, right?...so...through a consciousness state...of course that there is some access to the unconsciousness, like the dreams, right? But what Freud will say is: this is stimulus that is inside the subject, the origin of this stimulus is something outside the consciousness; and we have some kinds of instincts, right?...one of them, of course: i will...i will defend my life, so it's a survival instinct of the self, right?...individual...at the same time, this individual, this subject is an individual of the specie...the human species and the reproduction is an element of the human subject; so there's also sexual instincts, right?...of conservation of the specie; and this sexual elements are related with the conservation of the subject, of the individual. Why an instinct do not achieve the end?...there is something happening here, right?...because the end of instinct is the satisfaction, and when the satisfaction cannot be achieved...be by your own body, by the body of other, by some object, doesn't matter...this energy needs to go to some place; so what Freud start to do is say: look, our thoughts have roots that are not consciousness......are the unconsciousness mind, right?...before Freud we have Charcot saying that there is a second mind; but in Freud the second mind is the unconsciousness, right?...and the unconsciousness works with the principle of pleasure; so more pleasure, less pain; more pain, less pleasure; the unconsciousness have this principle working in the individual. So when we start to think in the beginning of the Modernity...that the subject and the reason and the logic...it's enough to understand and know the world...with Freud and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer our actions, our thoughts better saying, our ideas, with roots that are not consciousness; or in other words: with roots that we cannot see, that we cannot understand in a first perspective. So the unconsciousness is bigger of the consciousness, and a lot of things happens here in the unconsciousness...our instincts...and our instincts have an aim, that is the satisfaction of the instinct; the instinct wants to go to the consciousness, but many times there is a barrier here, and when this happens is when the disease appears; repression; but of course, the same energy of the instinct, that is inside us and is continuous, right?...it's not an external instinct, that came to our body and we give an answer, and it's a moment, like running from a tiger; it's different, the instinct that is the stimulus in the inside of the subject is continuous, so every day you have some energy inside you, that guides you and this is a broken point, because we are guided by unconsciousness motives…
index ^ || 36 - Deep Psychology. Topology of the psychological structure. Freud
And Freud will develop...a topology concerning the anatomy of the mind, of the psychological structure and let's think that here is the Unconsciousness, right?...and there is another sphere here, inside, that is the Pre-Consciousness, and another sphere inside [of this last one] that is the Consciousness; and our Instinct, that is an impulse, a force, will came from here [Usc] to here [Cs] aiming to obtain the satisfaction...here in the conscience, consciousness, we have logic, right?...time, space...it's the Kantian idea of the subject; and here, in the unconscious, we have illogical...so there is no logic here; when you dream you can...after a moment be in a time totally different, or a space totally different, right?...the dreams are in this part of unconsciousness...structure; so the instinct will proceed with this movement... and here [before Pcs] there is a first barrier; and then here [before the Cs]...so the unconsciousness do not talk with the consciousness mind directly; there's a gray area here that is the Pre-Consciousness; and when the instinct don't have success to acquire this target in the consciousness mind, because a barrier here [before Pcs], or because a barrier here [before Cs], we have a symptom, right?...because this energy of the instinct needs to be[go] to a place, right?...so this is the first topology made by, did by, Freud concerning our psychological structure; and after he will develop another topology that is not in conflict with this, but is a complementary...structure to understand better the psychological structure of the human being; so this second topology, what Freud will do? Freud will say: look, in the subject we also find the Ego...this...Ideal-Ego and these three spheres works in the movement of the energy, of the instinct, right?...so this second topology, 10 years later Freud will write that: here we have what he called the Id...the Id...and the Id is totally inside their Unconsciousness mind [Ucs]; and here we have what Freud called the Self, or Ego...and the Eg you can find in the Pre-Consciousness and in the Consciousness mind, right?…so here you have the Ego, the Self; and a very important part is the Ideal-Ego, right?...that are in the Unconsciousness, in the Pre-Consciousness and in the Consciousness; so this is the Ideal-Ego, right?...or Self and this second topology also can...some persons like to think in this way...so here you have the sea, below this the water and here you will have an Iceberg, right?...and this Iceberg you will have here...the Ego…...the Id...that is the not-determined, it's not the self, right?...it's the wild... so and here you have the Ideal-Ego...and in the surface you have the consciousness, here the pre-consciousness and here the unconsciousness; so this topology of the...psychological structure is what Freud...built and he said...he said...says...here we have the Principle of Pleasure, right?...and here we have the Principle of Reality and here we have the principle that we can say...the Ideal[Idealistic] Principle...so this is the Ideal-Ego[SuperEgo], right?…
index ^ || 37 - Freud - Id, Ego, SuperEgo
So there is no time, there is no logic, there's movement, no contradiction, there's no logic in the unconsciousness, right?...and the ideal, idealistic ego, right?...we can say that here is the issue of the rule, right?...the rule...here [Id] is the jurisdiction of the will, the pure will, the instinct, and here [Ego] of the reason, right?...reason... the ideal ego, that is the rule: should i do this? Shall i do this?...where are the origin of the rules that are inside my head, that i follow...?...the rules that i follows and that are inside my head?...the origin of these rules?...and Freud will say: the father; the will, the Id, that is the wild side, so here you will have the mother, right?…so father, mother...so this is how the rule is introjected inside the person, in the childhood; so Freud will say: that the boy wants the mother, because here is the pleasure principle; and the father for the little boy it's a kind of opponent, because it's an impediment to the will, that is [to] have the mother, that...that works with the pleasure, right?…and what is important we think concerning this topology, and this dynamic, of the psychological structure thinked[thought] by Freud?...is the question of Determinism and here we come back to the beginning of the Modernity with Hobbes...because Thomas Hobbes will say that the subject is not only self-interested, right?...so in Freud this will be the instinct of self-preservation, of survive...but in Thomas Hobbes also the subject works with the reason and are[is] commanded by the passions, because there is a Determinism, right?...so here [Id] we have the instinct that is always constant, inside the subject, that will pass to the Super-Ego, Ideal-Ego of the subject, to check if it's possible, and the result will be the reason working with the Ego in an equation among the passions and the reason...the rules, the reason, are doing a judgment of consequence... so there is a determinism that an idea that is in the unconsciousness side will guide an idea and consequently an action that are in the consciousness side...so we are guided by something that we don't know, we don't have access directly, right?...and there's a determinism: the unconsciousness determines the consciousness; and when Freud say about the free association of ideas in the treatment we need to think that this free association do not exclude the determinism because this free association is...thinking in a way that who... whom dream will in a first place, in a first person, say about the dream; this is why is free will: is whom dream saying about the own dream, about what happens in the unconsciousness in the deep psychology of the will, right?...and the determinism is what remains as a connection of cause and effect, being the cause the unconsciousness, and the effects what is in the consciousness mind and our actions are guided by motives that are unconsciousness…so this is...a very big problem to be solved by the Western Philosophy and if you remember Thomas Hobbes, coming back to the beginning of the Modernity, we will remember that the causality is only the person see what happens after something, and the persons are seeing this [experience] and concludes that there's a necessary relation; so Thomas Hobbes, in the beginning of the Modernity will face the issue among liberty and necessity, right?...and necessity is how the physical world, the natural world, works in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes…so this determinism also exists in the Freudian theory, right?...but here we have a new thing that is: our actions are guided by motives that are unconsciousness, that we cannot see, right?…
index ^ || 38 - Eros and Thanatos. Freud
So the roots are in the infancy, in the childhood, right? ...where we have this relation of the child with the mother and with the father; mother being the pleasure, father being the rule, right?…and this will be the structure in the future of the subject; but what is also important we understand in Freud is that the instinct...we have the stimulus, right?...an external...a notion of stimulus......and we have the stimulus inside the subject, and this stimulus is the instinct, right?...Freud will say: we can name a lot of instincts, but it's possible we reduce to in two categories, that are the principle of Eros and the principle of Thanatos; so the principle of pleasure, of life and the principle of death; and it's possible to see this...these two kinds of instincts working in the human psychological structure; and in a meaning, this is the same that Nietzsche said...concerning everything be...an element in the evolution process, so...like everything has a place in the determinism of the movement, right?...and Freud will say: it's possible to verify these two instincts in activity when happens the psychoanalysis process of the patients it's possible to see the principle of life and the principle of death working in the deep psychology, in the unconsciousness, of the person; and here again we have another problem because...it's like Freud say: look, we have a destruction principle, a dissolution principle that move the things to the undetermined and at the same time you have this affirmative principle, that aims to determine, to establish the jurisdiction of the self; so the life is a contradiction in movement with these instincts working inside of us…
index ^ || 39 - Atomic bomb - mankind suicide?
In a certain way we are conditioned by a determinism that has no limits; so if the things happens like Freud describes, there is no freedom, there is no liberty; but we need remember: the right came before the law, the liberty came before the restriction of the liberty; is it possible to live a life without conditionings? Is it possible to create the own values like said Nietzsche concerning the super...superman...so the constant development of new values, of new perspectives, the new, the liberty, the freedom, all this only a dream?...and after Freud we have a very deep event that change the destiny of the human species, because never before...i'm not talking about Hitler, genocide, because we can see other examples of this kind of thing in the History that we know about the human being...but i'm talking about another thing: when...when we start to think: is it possible, at once, exterminates the human specie?…the all human species can exterminate the human's specie with a nuclear bomb?...so never before in the History there's the ability to destroy all the world with...a power of a technology; technology is power and now the human being developed so...a power...so powerful concerning the others [powers], that is the nuclear...nuclear power for bombs, that never before exist the possibility of the human species be extinct by their own human species, right?...and this change everything, because we already know, be with Freud, or with Thomas Hobbes, that the human instincts, passions, emotions, goes to every side, including...including the dangerous side, right?...so, never before in the History of mankind, the human being has...had the power to destroy all the specie and this changes everything, since the Ancient Philosophy; this is the biggest question in the Contemporary Philosophy…
index ^ || 40 - Genetic Engineering - Eros or Thanatos
And the things are getting worse, because when we think about the biotechnology today ...so if before the mankind can commit suicide by some of its members that are in the power... so it's more difficult you manage a nuclear bomb, there is a lot of security steps...now, today, with the new technologies, in the biotechnology world, i'm talking about crispr/cas9...this kind of thing...that is genetic manipulation...so imagine that today it's easier than in the past, and very cheap, you...works with genetic engineering, right?...but when you change some components in the biological being this changes, because the determinism, all the ecology, right?...so now you can think that if before the problem of the mankind commit suicide by some of them that are in charge of the powers, of the nuclear bombs; today the human specie can produce a lot of individuals that with not so many money can works with genetic engineering and create mutants, right?...that will change the Ecology...so this is another big issue that Philosophy shall to face in the Contemporary Philosophy…
δ | Delta
...the Tsar Bomb...right?...nuclear bomb... from the Soviet Union... ...atomic bomb…
index ^ || 42 – Heidegger. The Being as openness
So let's see what Heidegger has to say about technology and the atomic power, because when we saw, for example, what was did [done] against Hiroshima [広島市, Hiroshima-shi] and Nagasaki [長崎 , "Long Cape"], against the Japanese people, it was a complete horror, right?...so some arguments are defended in the meaning that the atomic bombs, that were dropped in these cities, helps to end earlier the conflict of the Second War as the any option...but they prefer drop the bombs and show the power and kill, at once, two cities, right?…so with this kind of power...of this kind of power of destruction... and technology and power Bacon already taught us...Francis Bacon...that is the same...so the atomic technology, for guns, for bombs, was the breaking point in the mankind, concerning the possibility of the specie commit suicide, right?...so here we start to think what is important in the issue of Existence; and against the determinism of Thanatos and Eros, that Freud showed to us, we have other things... we have things like the Existence coming before the Essence, right?...so is the beginning of the...Existentialism, right?...so let's try to see other video that is concerning an interview with Heidegger and you can see in this interview the beginning of the Dasein, the Existence as preceding the essence...so before we exist and after we have the essence; and this will be a key issue concerning technology and the connection among technology and philosophy...let's see what Heidegger will say: "For the question of 'being' and its development assumes an interpretation of 'Dasein' that is, the nature of the human. And the basic idea of my thinking is precisely that the being or the openness of being needs the human, and conversely that the human is only human insofar as he stands in the openness of being. So, the question of the extent that I am only concerned with 'being' and have forgotten the human should be cleared away. You cannot talk about 'being' without asking about the nature of the human. And what did you mean when you said that greater than the danger of the atom bomb for humanity today is the 'Ge-setz' of technology. Enframing, as you call the essential feature of technology, to reveal the rest in the mode of ordering as 'always-for-use' "...the law of technology is always instrumental, right?..."Yeah, the first thing to say is that I'm not against technology. I've never spoken against technology. nor would I demonize technology. But I only try to understand the nature of technology. When you quote this thought about the danger of the atom bomb and the even greater danger of technology I'm thinking of what today is developing as biophysics, that is the foreseeable future, we'll be able to do with human beings, that is, construct them in their organic nature as one needs them: skilled and unskilled, clever and dumb. So far, this will happens. The technological possibilities are available today and were already expressed by Nobel Laureates at conference in Lindau, as I quoted in a talk years ago in Mosskirch. So, this misunderstanding has to above all be rejected that I'm against technology. Rather, I see in technology, in its essence that is, that the human is under the influence of a power which challenges him and against which he is no longer free. And here something is indicated: namely, a relation of being to the human And this relation, hidden in the essence of technology, some day might in its unconcealment, come to light"...so pay attention, because now, with this kind of technologies, be the atomic technology for nuclear bombs, be the genetic engineering to modify humans and produce mutants, doesn't matter; the question, the focus of the main question, now, is: what is the being? The being came before the essence...what is the being, right?...because Descartes...Descartes will say: "cogito ergo sum" and will focus on the "cogito", but not in the "suum" and the "sum" [suum] precedes the essence, right?...so what is that being?...what is the human being, right?...what is the human being? If we are talking about the being we are talking about the human being?...and what makes us different of other kinds of life and the technology?...and different from the technology?…
index ^ || 43 - Existentialism. Heidegger
So we are in the Contemporary Philosophy, right?... and the issue here is that we need to understand what and who is the human being, right?...because we came from a history that the essence, the reality, in the beginning of the Ancient Philosophy, is in the formal world, the ideal world, the idealistic world; and after, in the beginning of the Modernity, with Descartes, the focus will be in the subject...but in the subject that is thinking, right?...so in the thinking process, that after will be developed in the philosophies of Kant, Hegel and the issue of the will with Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud, with the determinism of the unconsciousness ideas guiding our consciousness and our acts; and here we are in a world with a technology that is able to the mankind...mankind can commit suicide with this technology, that is the atomic bomb, right? ...so here we start to see the power of technology and how this power became...can be...become our master, right?...so from the creator we can become the creature of these machines...let's see what Heidegger will say: "For, in his essence, man is always compelled to try anew. And specially in the present time, I would say, going back to the first question, that the reflection on what and who man is, is necessary today, where the danger is that humans are at the complete mercy of technology, and some day will be made into a controlled machine. You also had another remark where you referenced your country and said that your country and people belong among the underdeveloped countries. When speaking of the underdeveloped, it must always be asked what goal is conceived for development. According the modern conception, the European and American sense of development it means, in the first place, a modern technological world. From this standpoint I would say that, your land, on this basis of its ancient and ongoing traditions, is high developed. By contrast with Americans, with their technology and atomic bombs"....so the use of atomic bomb...if we think about the instincts in the Freudian theory and remember the instinct of death, at the side of the instinct of life; and if we think in these instincts in a collective level, right?...so we will ask: human beings, with this kind of power - the atomic bomb, what will be the behavior of the human beings after this kind of power is disclosure for the human specie, right?...so is it possible that we are not condemned to these instincts?...maybe this kind of existence and this...where the existence came before the essence...is what after Sartre will say: that we are condemned to the liberty, to the freedom...so we need an answer for this...dark perspective that Freud came to... ...bring to us and maybe this...this path to get out of this dark scenario is in the Existentialism, right?...so i don't care where i came from; i'm here now; i'm existing now; and the action is what will guide the notion of the subject; we are free in essence because we simply exist here; doesn't matter why; we are here; and what we can do now is the action; so liberty, freedom: is it possible?...when we think about the Freudian theory… we have liberty or there is a determinism, and the end of our specie is not so far, considering the technology, right?...one important question: when self-driving cars and human surgeons commit less errors than humans driving a vehicle or operating another human being...well, the robot will be the rule, right?...so it's very possible that we already are controlled by the machines...so we need to start to think more: what is the being?...what differs us from another kinds of life and from the machines?...is the consciousness of the being?… what is the human being?...in a world that technology, the biotechnology, the technology of the artificial "intelligence"…what are the human beings?...what is the being?
index ^ || 44 - Dasein Dasein...
so there's a priority of existence...existence over essence; Dasein...to be, existence...so what Heidegger will do is say: look, when Descartes talk about the 'cogito ergo suum' Descartes do not think deeply in the subject concerning that the existence precedes the essence; so let's think on the being concerning [to] what we can say about the subject, the soul, the consciousness, the spirits and the person; so all these words...with all these words...we have determination, right?...but Dasein is out of determination; Dasein is always an openness; and what Heidegger will do is use the phenom...Phenomenology, right?...as a method to understand what is the being, what is the existence; and the existence, the being, will be the object of...the main object of Philosophy; so we are talking about an Ontology, right?...that use phenomenal...phenomenology as a method, method...and Heidegger will use Scheler and Husserl...but he will, of course, develop the thoughts, of these philosophers; so when we are talking about a physical world, in a...a world that is further than physics, there is a problem, because metaphysics usually...considers a self-evident the issue of the being; but the being is more than self-evident; Phenomenology is a method that will...try to find, to discover the meaning that are not...in a first perspective for the subject that are looking for this object of phenomena...this phenomenon, right?...so when we are talking about this we can say that Heidegger will considers the openness of the being because the acts are different concerning...in relation to the physics world, right?...as well as the psychological world; acts are different of these; when we take the acts as a phenomenon to be analyzed...right?...we see that the acts...are always intentional acts, right?...intentional acts; so here we have a division, right?...and this intentional acts are not psychological acts; when we say intentional acts this is not more an object, because the intentionality is always an openness, right?...and what more we can say? That the persons are performers of the intentional acts; and this is the unit; but let's think more, let's think about further than Psychology, right?...let's think on Anthropology, let's think about also Biology because the being is not only life and this is the difference of Dasein that is related with the human life, right?...and Dasein is not something life plus something, because there's always an openness of this subject, right?...so the existence is previous the essence; what...more we can say about this philosopher called Heidegger and his main...his main...his masterpiece: "Being and Time"; i selected here some...texts...Heidegger will say: "life in its own right is a kind of being but essentially it's accessible on in Dasein"; "Dasein is never to be defined ontologically"; so Dasein is more than this [ Psychology, Anthropology, Biology ], right?...because this is collect, describe...and this is not Dasein...Dasein is related with the being in the world acting...without limits, right?...
index ^ || 45 - The being and the freedom
So let's try to understand...the History of Western Philosophy concerning...two sides that we always can find in the History of the Philosophy; so if we think in the authors, the philosophers, that we already studied here in this Introduction to the Western Philosophical way, we will remember that: in this side, we have the physics, a material world, right?...and at this other side, we have the idea, the formal world...and here we are talking about Plato, right?...and the being in Plato will have more degrees of being and totally...the idealistic degree of a full being, here, in this ideal world, this formal world; and less...less degree of being in this material, in this physical world; of course, in the Ancient Philosophy Aristotle will contest this and say: no, look, the material world also have [has] a high degree of being and the being has many causes here [ at this side ]...but what i want to bring is that this division here, right?...this tension here... and when we go to Modernity we can think in the issue of liberty, right?...and the necessity; so the material world, in the Modernity...we have the necessity, the causality, right? the classic physics...and in this side the liberty; the liberty of the sovereignty, that there's no one ruling the sovereignty...the sovereignty is the one that rule itself, right?...so we have here Leviathan, right?...as a being created by the human being, and that in its essence has liberty; we will come back in this issue further to talk about the being of the Artificial Intelligence (AI); when we go further we have here the theoretical reason...reason and the practical reason; and here, at this side, we have the possibility of...an universal ethics; so we are talking on how we works with the liberty; we are talking of Kant; and this theoretical reason to know this material world, the nature, right?...to know the nature... and here we arrive in the Heidegger's philosophy; and we have the absurdity of the life with the Existentialism, of Sartre, for example; we have the entity, right?...and here we have the being, the Dasein; and the openness, right?...so here we have Heidegger; here we have, at this side...right?...: the ideal, the formal, the liberty, the practical reason, the Dasein; and at this [other] side: the entity, the nature, causality, physis, material world; so, at this side we have an opposition to this [other] side, right?...that happened in all the history of the philosophy; and here we can see the dialectics in these movements...
index ^ || 46 - Simone de Beauvoir. Future
The Existentialism will be concerned with the issue of the being in the absurdity that is the life, right?...because there's no meaning; and when you don't have meaning it's open...the possibilities are not in a closed sphere...there's an openness, right?...so let's see what Madame de Beauvoir...Simone de Beauvoir...said about what is Existentialism...: "...If asked for the definition of man according to existentialism, would you have to summarize a great philosophical works? Yes, I think it is quite impossible. But perhaps we can overcome the difficulty by approaching the problem of man's existence in different aspects, in a less general way, for example: what values do you recognize in man? Well, man himself. We think that - and this is one of the most important points of Existentialism - that man is ultimately the reason for his own being, his own future, the very aim of all his activities. That is, we find good all that serves the interests, happiness and development of man. And bad is all that goes against such. This is absolutely the fundamental basis of what we may call our ethics or even morals. Man is both his own cause and purpose? Perhaps not cause, but certainly his own purpose. His very reason for existence. So what's his cause then? That is a metaphysical question that I don't think I'm in a position to settle. We don't ask such metaphysical questions like many philosophers since Kant"....so, how we can see, the future is the area of Existentialism, right?...in opposition to the Freudian world, that is related with the determinism and the past, right?...so pay attention: cause and effect...cause and aim...purpose, right?...the future...so the perspective of the Existentialism is the future; doesn't matter why i become a writer - so many causes can be the reason, just accept the effect that you exist, you are a being and the future is an openness…
index ^ || 47 - God. Simone de Beauvoir
A very interesting point in the Simone de Beauvoir, in this interview, is concerning [to] the process to discover the phenomenon... right?...the phenomenology works...with degrees of enlightenment of the phenomenon, right?...so let's see what Madame de Bouveair said about God: "That's not quite right...It was rather a problem of consciousness, kind of awareness I realized, not sure exactly when, when 13, 14, that I no longer believed. When I was little I believed quite fervently in angels, baby Jesus, etc…then I began believing less in all that external mythology, but still believed in God. Gradually I refined God so much that He no longer was relevant to this world because God couldn't be stupid like the people I saw, the priests I talked to. He was different and not interested in trivialities. He ended up not corresponding to anyone or anything. I then realized God no longer existed for me, He had eventually evaporated. As you say, that was early. Did you reconsider the question later? Later I studied philosophy and everything I learned I won't say proved, but continued to support the idea that God wasn't even a question. I read, for example, Kant at 18, and like him, I thought that you should reject metaphysics or ontology and ask questions that start from our existence on the Earth without seeking to penetrate to the chain of cause and effect beyond" ...so this is Existentialism, right?...because...when she think about God she start to discover that this object...God, it is not like was told to her ...it is not like she...usually...had believed in the childhood, right?...so in the process of enlightenment...concerning the notion of God...this God simple evaporates...right?...this is Phenomenology...and also is Existentialism...the action, right?...so we are here...does not matter the cause, the metaphysical cause, the essence...the first essence...does not matter...we are here and we can act...so the issue is: the being...what can be the actions in Existentialism?...for sure the future is an openness in the opposition of [to] the past, right?...Is the Existentialism the alternative to the Psychoanalysis?
index ^ || 48 - Human condemnations - absurdity and freedom, at the contingency of 06th May 2021
So what we choose?...What path we choose? Can we choose something or we are condemned to the past?...or maybe you are condemned to the liberty, right? What i do with [what] someone did to me?...so the future is the place of the choice, it's the liberty, you choose your...way, your path...according what?...your past, or the complete emptiness..."Dasein"...we are condemned...look: the garden of the cemetery is open...let's stop here...it's a good place to think on Philosophy...let's do a fast video...very fast video...so how it's possible determines the "causa mortis" of someone; this is very strange...because it can be so many causes, right?...so many causes you can have: the heart disease, the behavior, an accident...what is the "causa mortis" of the person...so the life is absurdity, this is what life is, right?...let's get out to the life...we are free to choose...considering the absurdity of the life, you are free to choose and this make us liable, with responsibility, for our choices - that are free choices...so is in the future...lies in the future the responsibility, and not more in the past.
index ^ || 49 - The being and the nothing. Pre-Ontology
So let's...remember that what Sartre and Heidegger are trying to do is: let's analyze what came before the essence, that is the being, the existence, right?...so while Heidegger will associate the being and the time, the future, the openness, being undetermined...so Sartre will relate the being with the nothing; so this will change everything because will change the importance of the relation of cause and effect, right?...because when Sartre try to, start to develop his thinking, saying that the being and the nothing…so it's the same that Sartre say: look, what came before any kind of determination?...of course, the undetermination...and what is not determined?...The nothing, right?...so the...being itself; we have the being in itself, right?...the being in it-self; and we have the being for-self; so this is something like Hegel dialects, because this opposition...and here [being for-self] we have the nothing, right?...undetermined, what came before the being; and here [being it-self] we have the being; and in a dialect process we will have the nothing with the being, right?...[for-self-it-self] and this is a Pre-Ontology; the Ontology will study essence, and what...existentialists will do is study the being, right?...and the being is the nothing, the undetermined... and this will have a lot of consequences when we think about Psychology, because Sartre will start to draft the possibility of a Psychoanalysis that is Existential, right? The Existential Psychoanalysis...and what is the big difference? Well, Sartre will say: we have the psychology that are related with the Empirism, right?...and here we have Freud…and we have the Psychology that is Existentialist...and here we have Sartre...of course, we have a lot of points of connection; a lot of points of connection before the big difference among these two sides, right?...between the Empirism Psychology and the Existentialist Psychology...so what Sartre will say is that in this side [Psychoanalysis Empiricist ] what matters is the desire, right?...the instinct, the will...and this will be the...content of the consciousness, right?...will determine the consciousness...and this will is unconsciousness, right?...in Freud, here is Freud...and another thing is that this kind of psychology will works with a method that try to find tendency, right?...tendencies, tendency, as well as wants to find the desires...the origin of the desires...so we are extremely related with the past here in this side [ Empiricist ]...and what will Sartre will build here [ Existential Psychoanalysis ] is say: look, we have this Pre-Ontological conception of the human being and this...the human being is so complex, that when we try to reduce...the contingency to abstraction, universal structures, we have a problem, because the idea of substance, of person, for this kind of thinking is like something that is not so strong; it's like a cartoon of the human complexity, right?...so what we see is that there is absurdity; we never can find the origin of the behavior, the causes, right?...the correct structure and sequence of cause - we never can find this; and the life is an absurdity and everything is generic when we use this kind of method, and not concrete, right?...so Sartre start to work with the intuition, and the idea that the intuition of the self and any kind of little behavior, of each conscience, already show the totality of the human being, right?...so we started to see that every desire is of an absurd contingency when you start to compare these two sides, right?...what more we can say is that the original project of the human being is in the nothing...right?...area; so it's always an open possibility and not something determined by the past
index ^ || 50 - Existential Psychoanalysis
So when...while in Freud we can say that unconsciousness cause the consciousness, the self, determines...we can say that the nothing is the cause of the being, and this will change everything, because the human being, the man, is like the being, that is the same of a being of possibilities, that is why, if you pay attention, a project of being… and what is this project of being? ...this project of being is the same thing of what the instinct is for Freud...it's the origin, but this origin it's an origin that do not has a determination, and because of this what the nothing is...is liberty, because liberty do not have [has] any determination; so liberty and nothing is the same thing, right?...that is the same thing of being...we are condemned to the liberty; the being, that is the nothing, is the fundamental point of the causality; so inside the being, the causality starts here...and there is no determination, so there is liberty, there is a choice of the all possibilities…this will change everything concerning Freud.
index ^ || 51 - Freud's Psychoanalysis x Existential Psychoanalysis
So concerning [to] what is similar we can say that both think[s] that every human has a history, right?...and everyone starts with this history like...virgin paper, right?...so we can say that there's no primordial data...even here in Freud, because when the child is in the development process, she's an empty paper, right?...and here we have the nothing is equal the being. What more we can say is that both works with symbols, right?...so if you have the attention here: instinct that is in the unconsciousness mind, right?...and to achieve the consciousness mind, the symbols are changing the meaning, right?...and here we also always can change the meaning of the symbols because we have the openness, right?...the cause, the first cause, is the nothing, it's the undetermined, it's the liberty; so what we can say also is that what...matters is the meaning, more than collection and statistics of data, right?...so the meaning...for Freud and for Sartre is something that is very important... so the Existential Psychoanalysis is a method to decipher, right?...and not make, not do a catalog, right?...so it's to decipher; and each contingency, right?...and not only in the past, but also in each action of the patient; so it's a method to decipher, right?...and the start point is the experience, but...the most important point is the Pre-Onthological conception of the human being; what more we can say is that the subject that will be the analyzed person is not in a good position in relation with its own position in the analysis, right?...to proceed with the investigations...but what more we can say concerning [to] similarities?...i don't know...but when we start to pay attention on the difference, the fundamental difference, is that: here we have the complex, right?...as the sun of instincts ...energy from the unconsciousness, right?...and here we have the choice as something that is always possible because here [Existential Psychoanalysis] the origin is the nothing, there is no determination, so the synthesis is before the consciousness; other thing that is important is that Sartre do not accept the unconsciousness structure, because he will say that it's different you have consciousness and you have knowledge, right?...so...you can have consciousness but you cannot have the knowledge and this is not necessarily an area that is...unconscious mind; there is no unconsciousness, everything is consciousness, but some things you don't know, right?...so what is the most important thing? The start point, because in another...lecture i did a brief history concerning [to] divisions in the History of Philosophy, where we have the tension among (to use the expression of Modernity) necessity and liberty; or, in the Ancient Philosophy, the Physis, right?...and the Ideal world; or to talk in Kant, we have here the practical reason, and a theoretical reason; and here, in the Contemporary world, we have the being; the being as the nothing, right?...as the nothing...so the liberty is at this side, in the Sartre theory, philosophy...and, at this other side, you will have the absurdity of the world, of the causation that you don't know how to explain, right?...it's always a cartoon of the reality, the concrete reality...we are condemned to the liberty
index ^ || 52 - Contingency is already totality
Now let's see an existentialist talking about the own past: this is the World War I...Lenin...is Lenin? I think is Lenin...revolutions...was a perturbed time the beginning of the past Century...the heads...Sartre: "I am a provincial reject of World War I and the Russian Revolution...I went to a pretty rough school in port towns like La Rochelle...kids hang around ships and sallors and...see more violence than usual. Later I saw it when I taught in Le Havre it was also due to the war I'd led a sheltered life till then The older kids of 13 to 15 were really conditioned by the war…not that they want to be soldiers...but they'd absorbed the violence...and become little thugs It all grew out of the war Picture me as an year-old Parisian… filled with inhibitions I'd led a sheltered life I spoke more elegantly…i.e., more stupidly than my peers As you can imagine… the result was disastrous. In the beginning, I tried to impress them; They all talked about...the girls they'd had and...their wild orgies. So I invented a girlfriend I told the boys at the school I had…a girl in Paris I took to hotels. I was 11! The amazing part is that I said we'd meet...in the afternoon to find a hotel...and do all that my school mates claimed they did. I even had a girl write me a letter. She was my mother's maid It began Dearest Jean-Paul I passed it around But my closest pais caught on and...I had to admit it was a hoax...Then I become the Parisian liar...who talked and even act strangely...That was a lonely time for me...I recall walking trough...the Mall, a garden overlooking the beach...where my classmates were...and hoping they'd invite me...to come and join them. They finally did but...I think they enjoyed making me wait. One thing is certain: I learned about loneliness as well as violence. When my pais hit me, I hit back; I internalized that violence I tried to feel that I was violent...In a number of ways. For example, my best pais loved pastries I stole from Mother's purse in order...to buy some for the 2 or 3 boys...I admired the most…"...so the ugly french boy change the History of Philosophy observing the contingency, right?...what he is talking is contingency of the life; this is important...for the psychoanalysis existentialist...yes, everything is important, not only what a...Freudian perspective will call unconsciousness, but every little act is important, because the complex in the Freudian theory, for Sartre, is the last act, free act, that a person choose; and the person can choose anything from the first cause that is the nothing, that is the own existence, right?...so every little piece can help, but not in the meaning that you collect memories, but in the meaning that in each event there is the totality of the being...so when Sartre say about his childhood, an event of his childhood, it's a contingency and in this contingency you can decipher the totality of his being; and the being of Sartre is free to choose a different way from the way that he is talking about, that is the way that happens in his childhood, right?...that he was a liar, trying to impress other persons; so his[he] simple change, because the last act is the freedom
index ^ || 53 - Sartre - the complex is last choice
And let's see the contingency of why Sartre likes to write; this is a question that is common, it is usual to...for philosophers: why [do] you write and read so much?...and we can understand that the interpretation of the person, that is the being, is the most concrete...the intuition, the last action...so, the subject when relates something, some contingency...the interpretation of the subject is the most concrete; let's see why Sartre write[s]: "in books I met the universe and assimilated, classified and labeled it…" I confused the disorder of my readings...with the happenstance of real events. It took me 30 years to get rid of that Idealism...Since childhood, reading has been...very important in my life. Words, meaning books, were my refuge. At that time, my life in La Rochelle was...full of violence and isolation...plus full days - Thurdays or Sundays - devoted for reading books by...for example, Ponson du Terrail. In those days, reading represented…the very core of reality. All else was peripheral......a sort of fantasy...since i wasn't unhappy in the real world"; since i wasn't unhappy in the real world it's my refuge the writing and the reading, the words, and the real world become the phantoms; so it's interesting if we come... start to think what others philosophers said about this...i can remember, for example, Cioran - that is another contemporary philosopher, that say the same thing: i...write in a meaning of health process, i need to write to be healthy; and Cioran is very pessimist, right?...why we need to move if all will end?...if we think about Hannah Arendt, she will say: well, i write to not forget, and this is part of the construction of my thoughts; or Nietzsche will say: i have a necessity to write, that simple happens, came out of me, it's my way to be in the world...
...
| index ^
Notes
Publisher/Editor: copyright also for the Legal Entity with headquarter in Brazil, enrolled in the Brazilian Tax Record under the corporate number CNPJ/ME 12.589.085/0001-74; Brazilian Publisher Prefix ISBN Author-Publisher 85-911683, with edition done previously to the transfer of rights to the mentioned legal entity. © PEDIdeias ®
Commerce: business.art.br/books
Cover and Images: cover created by the Author, from own image and images in public domain
Printing: Paper: Amazon, Printed in USA; Format: Pocket, 10,80 x 17,46cm (4.25 x 6.88in, version on paper by ISBN 978-65-00-66398-3; Digital: E-Book, in the servers rdc.pro.br, by ISBN 978-65-00-66397-6
| index ^
Author
Author: Rafael De Conti (Rafael Augusto De Conti) is a Philosopher, Lawyer and Writer, with books on General Philosophy, Ethics, Political Philosophy, Juridical Philosophy, Politics in Brazil, Human Rights and Business Law. With a writing that varies from dissertation to dialogues, short stories and poetry, he was influenced, among others, by Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotles, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Freud, Osho, Krishnamurti, Laozi. He also received influences from all the people who lived with him: friends, enemies, family members, strangers, children, old people, men, women, animals, teachers, ministers and beggars, lawyers. Some themes and interests related to this book are: Nature, Science, Religion, Reason, Faith, Causality, Causation, Dialectics, Movement, Time, Space, Impermanence/Permanency, Finite/Infinite, Self, Identity, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Technology. Site: rafaeldeconti.com
______________________________________________________________
All rights reserved. Copying and distributing is prohibited without the prior permission of Rafael De Conti