Archive for January, 2013

The Gift

Thursday, January 31st, 2013

The center of the gravity of the hermeneutic question, Ricoeur calls ' ' world of obra' ' , that workmanship-writing is constituted by the speech. The speech ' ' it absolutely presents a primitive trace of distanciamento' ' , that it is the condition of possibility of all the traces that they will be treated later. The primitive trace is characterized for the dialectic of the event and the significao. Of a side the speech if of as event: ' ' Something happens when somebody fala' '. This notion is imposed since that the ticket of a linguistics of the language or the code to a linguistics of the speech or the message is considered. ' ' To say that the speech is an event is to say, before everything, that the speech is carried through secularly and in the gift, whereas the system of the language is virtual and is of tempo' '. ' ' The speech sends its interlocutor, by means of a complex set of pointers, such with the pronames pessoais' '.

Thus, ' ' the instance of the speech is auto-referencial' '. Event would be the fact of somebody speech something using the word. The event also consists of being speech. In this direction ' ' it is the coming to the language of a world by means of discurso' '. The language is the condition foresaw of the communication, supplying its codes. These had been the traces that had previously been mentioned that it would be cited later.

' ' If all speech is effected as event, all speech is understood as significao' '. ' ' What we intend to understand is not the event, in the measure where he is fugidio, but its significao that permanece' '. The nucleus of the hermeneutic problem if of the one in the linguistics of the speech that the event and the direction if articulate one on the other.

For Nietzsche

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

Nietzsche if always questioned on: Which value of the moral values? Of where they had come? Nietzsche criticizes the existing moral values and goes in search of its origins: where and why they had been born? For Nietzsche, predominant the moral values had originated from the weak ones, that they place as well as the negation of the actions of the powerful ones. it was well, therefore defined negative. The MORAL Before starting to speak on Nietzsche, and its questioning on the moral, we must enteder on what it is MORAL? which its relevance inside of the society, in research I found the following definition: The moral term is derived from Latin morale, that it means relative to the customs. It can also be defined as the acquisition in the way of being obtained by the appropriation or levels of appropriation, where if they find the character, the feelings and the customs. However with more research we can observe that the moral in the truth corresponds one conjuto of norms or prescrises, customs beyond behavior norms that must be followed and Nietzsche questions the existence of these values.

The moral term means everything what the all value is submitted where the trends most convenient to the development of the individual and social life must predominate in the behavior of the human being, whose aptitudes constitute the moral sensible call of the individuals. Inside of the Right also it exists some meanings for the moral term: For the Moral Right it is a set of rules in the conviviality. Its field of application is bigger of what the field of the Right. Nor all the Moral rules are rules of law. The field of the moral is ampler. The similarity that the Right has with the Moral is that both are forms of social control. What we can observes of all these concepts of MORAL, is that we can understand the reason of the questioning of Nietzsche on the moral its negation to this moral, and why it always esbarrava in the moral in its workmanships therefore they exceeded these customs the norms and that, the human beings would have to be gotten rid of this moral so that podesse if she becomes superior.

The Same

Friday, January 18th, 2013

The caminhante, as that to eternalize itself through the rock, takes off of the pocket a penknife, and crava on the rock its name and the date. Later if it raises and it follows its trajectory. Centuries and centuries if pass until a new caminhante pass for the rock. It sees registration, and, at the same time that if coming of the centuries exults with this message, if distresses, therefore it perceives that, as well as the other caminhante, it also it will pass, and the rock will remain. However, perspicacious readers, were in fact the same rock that the two had found? More still, this as caminhante one, later that it read the registration, suspirou for as, and came back to face the rock, was the same rock that it enxergava? I do not say in the symbolic direction that the rock can have acquired for it. Let us assume a rock without registration none; later that it looks at it to a caminhante, suspira, and it contemplates it again, it continues being the same rock? The rock, by chance, remains immovable as each one of the caminhantes believes? To the perspective of the human look, everything does not pass of a question of time scale. If a man lived, says, five billion years, would see that rock, bulk, to vanish itself in dust.

But this is not alone. In first place, the rock is not immovable, as it seems. It sails in the space, in great speed, in lombo of the planet Land. In second, the subatmicas particles constitute that it carry out a frantic movement that would seem a chaos, if the human look could enxergar microscopical space scales. If we had this powerful visual capacity, at the same moment where we saw the rock such which it is, the same one already would have left of being, with the caleidoscpico movement of its particles.


Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

One I to the eight years, another one to the eighty, and who knows, in an effort of imagination, another one I to the eight hundred years, and another one with eight billion years. Would remain some thing of I of eight years? this scale of time can be widened still more in agreement our whim, inside of what we assume eternity. These molecules that constitute the blood that runs in my veins was the same thing has eight billion years behind, or some another completely diverse thing? Heraclitus already said that, although knowing to be perpetual, never we know very well. Being thus, without understanding the sufficient, I rewrite with my letters a philosophy of millenia. I say thus: The universe, and also the soul (or psique), is always one to come to be, continuous change in a conjunction of the opposites. We are and we are not, in the same instant. Everything is not, at the same time. It does not have first cause, does not have one all? the universe is abysmal, the soul is indecifrvel.

It has only perpetual and the infinite ranks and the opposites for the movement, in a perpetual fire, saying metaforicamente. It is as soon as I interpret Heraclitus, this is my trend to face the life, to apprehend the world. They would say that an opinion question is alone. But I defend myself affirming that it is a stubborn opinion (and these are reckless, or then wise, therefore they defy the time and the rust of the centuries) and also a provoking opinion, therefore of minority (and they are these that more respect). If Parmnides had not been evil with Heraclitus, and if the unreliability and the human abandonment were not so more likeable to the comforting philosophy of Parmnides, in relation to the abyss of the perpetual one to flow where Heraclitus places in them, all the building of the human thought, and all history, the society, the customs would be different today.