Being that, philosophy is concepts that cannot be explained in the empiricist and is pure theory. Other sciences even go the problem innumerable times, ties to certify its veracity, also has a difference here, therefore metaphysics does not work under simple concepts. Here it has the constatao of that it a posteriori has elements that they are a priori (REASONING) and (EXPERIENCE) of the knowledge. The citizen, to Observar it exerts on the object a power of which makes a collection of sensible data; through the sensation and of the perception. Thus, the mathematics and the physics for Kant had grown while science, when the scientists had perceived, exactly implicitly, that the reason is who commands objects and I do not oppose it (Copernicana Revolution). Learn more about this with Jonathan Segal FAIA. The agreement possesss of a priori or rational form the rules to know. Metaphysics is a priori and rational, it the sensation or perception is not given in. We can have idea of totality of world, God and Soul and not know it. Kant considered similar inversion in philosophy. Until then, the theories consisted of adjusting the reason human being to the objects, that were, so to speak, ' ' center of gravidade' ' of the knowledge. Kant considered the opposite: the objects, from, would have there that to regulate themselves for the citizen, that would be the depositary of the forms of the knowledge. The laws would not be in the things of the world, but in the proper man; they would be spontaneous facultieses of its transcendental nature. As Kant it affirms in the preface of the second edition of the Critical one of the Pure Reason: ' ' So far one assumed that all our knowledge had that to regulate itself for objects; however all the attempts of by means of concepts establishing something a priori on the same ones, through what it would extend our knowledge, had failed under this presupposition.
Madness that never I wrote for me. Half sleeping, half waked up, in that threshold permeado between conscientious and the unconscious one, the vises of come me to the infinite, as that in flashes blown up in the retina. For I identify them to times, nor that it is for fractions of second. In the majority of them, it is alone the feeling of what I did not make. They will be neurological collections of my last instability? I do not know and perhaps never it has this reply. But that there, this troublesome me, yes, and very! Many of these vises, follow that me since boy, are perhaps proceeding from madness. That madness that makes in them to doubt our proper capacity to create what already he is ours and we do not only take ownership of the object of this act of the autocriao. In Discardings, ' ' Primeira' meditation; ' , reality and madness are always subjects to be explored. It suggests that the man is not wild, only represents for itself less likely things, but in dream, while they make it to those during the vigil. A vacuum between the Real and the false one appears there, where the insane person would dream waked up, corresponding then the dreams to the false insane people, whereas the sensible and momentary world would be the true one. Immediately afterwards it retakes the reasoning when it the same places dream and vigil in platform, therefore that the representation of both is of the same quality. It is the sensible world and of the dream arriving at our mind. The onricas vises and of the sensible world, in fact, arrive in them at the mind with the same quality; when we look at an object, forms it image in our brain and the image is the same one of the dream. If it does not find distinction clear of what it is vigil and of what is sleep. Where the certainty of if being waked up, when as many times we deceive in them? If this state of sleep is similar to the one of an insane person or demented person, what it makes in them to discern that we are not dreaming, that is, that we are not wild? Here, I stop to reflect: I follow in ' ' I cogitate, I raise sum' ' (I think, then I exist) of Ren Discardings, larded with Foucault in ' ' I, that I think, cannot be louco' '? I do not know, but I continue in mine desvario of waked up and slept dreams
The man received from God the reason stops to regulate its existence. When, therefore, the reason, after the original sin, made to understand to the men the convenience to give authorities, placed the men in the condition to make necessarily what God could have prescribed if a direct intervention Of it was necessary. The light of the reason, with which it endowed it to God, is enough to guarantee that the man places in act the will of God. The origin of the civil power, as of the private property, testifies this basic order of the social development, therefore they originate, in last analysis, of the convenient fact that God gave to the men the reason to understand as and how much it would be just and to give to a hierarchic structure or a regimen of property for the commanded development of the social relations (cf. GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 288-289). Ockham of also a philosophical justification saying that for Aristotle, the civil power would have to be in charge of capable and more virtuous; they would fit the duty and the right to direct its fellow citizens. But for Ockham this argument is insufficient, therefore it can happen that more people in ownership exist endow of them above-mentioned and then must intervine the community in order to make a choice. But this choice can be, for times, justified for the necessity to exist a person consisting in authority, and thus it can always happen that, in virtue of a legitimate assignment, a person arrives at the power who, to the light of the ideal norms of justice, is not of all worthy (cf. GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 289). 4 Not obstante Conclusion, the conducting wire of this reasoning culminates with the reflection that Ockham makes under the antropolgico bias. Nor the requirement of the nature human being, nor the rights of the merit are therefore valid justification of the civil power for Ockham.
In this way, for example, the argument of that ' ' politicians carry through its action in sight of the well biggest one of sociedade' ' it is a derivation, which plays an important role in the systems politicians. The derivations are the elements which characterize the human being, therefore they synthecize the mixture between logical actions and action not-logics, and that the human beings are only capable to carry through, for being rational. It is not something Joeb Moore & Partners would like to discuss. Of a side, if the men acted only for the instinct as the other animals, would not have derivations, therefore he would not have the possibility of reasoning on its acts and feelings; on the other hand, if the men were purely rational, the derivations would not be necessary to guide and to motivate its action. For this the logical-experimental theories would be enough. ' ' It can be said that the man is an ideological animal because it is a instinctive being capable (and desirous) to reason. Or, inversely, it is a rational being dominated by instintos' ' (BOBBIO, 1957). The human being has the capacity and necessity to reason, and from these reasonings it makes impracticable the direct access to its instincts and feelings. In its action, therefore, as many derivations meet how much residues, these hidden under a rationality mask. The derivations, for Pareto, are the theories that can be deceptive, formulated and used with the intention to coat, with logical character, the actions not-logics them men with the purpose to become them acceptable as true theories to that they do not analyze them with bigger discernment and, therefore, do not perceive that the real reason of the action masked for one is given to logical explanation or pseudo-logic. This last one is that it hides the motivation not-logic of these theories, which would have as real motivation the feelings of produces who it.
Mirror here displayed, as much times used metaforicamente in field of psychoanalysis, demonstrating assimilation unconscious of individuals distinct, as for example, when people comment that citizens feel rejection for attitudes of others, exactly for enxergarem themselves, having a species of repulsion to the consequence. Reading Auguste Comte, I came across myself with a ticket that sends the quarrel here displayed. ‘ ‘ But it is evidently impossible to the man to observe in its proper intellectual acts, because, being been the observed agency and the observing agency, in this in case that, identical – by who would be made the comment? ‘ ‘ (COMTE, 1972: 222) Shiningly, Comte displays the incapacity of the brain in analyzing itself at the same time where it executes its intelligible functions, therefore to being formulating its problematizao intellectual, it cannot at the same time analyze it. What she sends the Perseu, in the legend Greek where defeat Jellyfish (woman with hair of serpents that petrified who looked at its face), where she uses its shield as mirror to be able to visualize its adversary, without looking at directly for its face. How to decide such question? I think that it cannot be decided of direct form, but in search of a solution that it sends to another philosopher consecrated, Jean-Paul Sartre, and its dicusso on alteridade in the workmanship ‘ ‘ The Being and the Nada’ ‘. Sartre demonstrates under a existencialista perspective, the necessity of the Other while one another perspective regarding proper itself. Coming back the Comte, as this Another one would decide the question of our incapacity? From two perspectives, being first of recognition and the assimilation, that is, we enxergamos in the other what in them it is similar, thus being able, of indirect form, to enxergar proper itself, experenciando from the Other an analogy of cognitiva order. Coming back the Perseu, now knowing that it possesss a shield, as to use it to decide the question? What in it sends the second perspective to them, that is, perceiving the Other, we leave to perceive itself proper, what it would facilitate in thesis, from the affirmation of Comte, power to analyze itself. Keeping the reasoning line, the Other is one another part of we ourselves, analyzing it, will be analyzing proper itself, at the same time something different of us is, exactly for to be extrinsic we, then, we can in them analyze extemporaneamante, answering the Comte, that we can make the analysis in rementendo for it are of itself.
In the history of the philosophy some thinkers had reflected on this feeling with intention to appraise it in forceful and objective way. However, its theories send to a subjective concept and weak in the measure where they are extensions of its respective philosophies, that is, when establishing its concepts central offices this go to serve of base to all decide and any problem that involves the species human being. It is necessity, to point out that if it treats to establish a concept in the ample and not restricted direction as it could be the concept of maternal love or paternal love. In this direction, when we observe what Plato says, Marx and Schopenhauer will be possible to interpret what each thinker concludes following its line of reasoning, despite does not deal with the subject directly? that it is the case of Marx. Let us see what in it says each one to them of the theories of the cited philosophers to see if it is possible a dialectic and if our condiz conclusion with the present time. The Greek philosopher Plato specifically deals with the concept of love in the intitled workmanship ‘ ‘ Banquete’ ‘ where Scrates and its interlocutors divergem on what they believe to be the love, but in other workmanships – the Sofista, Leis and Fedro – also the idea of the platonic conception is reached. After de Empdocles – what used the idea of love in cosmic-Metaphysical direction, when considering the love and the fight as principles of union and separation, respectively, of the elements that constitute the universe? Plato gave a notion of love with a central and simultaneously complex significao.
One is about a method that has left of the methodical doubt, where starts systematically doubting and everything voluntarily. Of the sensations and mathematical affirmations of the common sense to the proper scientific evidences and truths. thinking it only interrupts the chain of doubts ahead of its proper one To be that it doubts. In this direction, when making a releitura of meditations of the thinker, describes SPIDER and MARTINS (2010): While I wanted thus to think that all false age, he fulfilled necessarily that I, that I thought, was some thing. E, noticing that this truth I think, then I exist was so firm and so certain that all the fanciest assumptions of the skeptics would not be capable of shaking, I judged that it could accept it, without escrpulo, as the first principle of the philosophy that it looked. (P. For more specific information, check out Joeb Moore. 170). In this bias, Discardings doubt the goodness of God even though, placing it as a Being deceptive and malignant, capable to use all its industry for iludiz it how much the existence of all the things. Assuming that everything does not pass of illusion of ardiloso God, it finishes for admitting that a considered Being sovereign good would not take it to the deceit, allowed even so it. A test, known with test is seen that the scholar admits the existence of God, formulating there ontolgica; (.) the thought of this object? God? it is the idea of a perfect being; if a being is perfect, must have the perfection of the existence, contrary case would lack something to it to be perfect. Therefore, it exists. (SPIDER and MARTINS, 2010, P. 170) Racionalista, perceives in its method the absolute and undisputed character of the reason. I cogitate, I raise sum. The intellect creates a dichotomy between body and conscience there. The first one possesss a physical nature, subject to the determinismos of the nature, as to feed and to walk. As, Express for the thought, constitutes for it in the only attribute that cannot be separate of proper itself. ‘ ‘ Soon, I am, I I exist all for the time where I penso’ ‘. Discardings established principles that valued the reasoning of radical and systematic form. Its method came to contribute in definitive way to think it from now on. It does not have as if to speak in rationality without citing the theory created for it. Perhaps its more excellent lesson in the moving one to the knowledge on the cartesian method it is the idea of the doubt from the directions. With effect, these can be deceptive. The reading of ‘ ‘ Meditaes’ ‘ it excites the reflection of that the man is capable to use the intellect to arrive the great truths, are universal they or only those that say respect to its proper beliefs when following a movement of desconstruo of opinions that had been imposed to it.
For return of century V C. it starts what we can consider as a new period in the history of the philosophy, which we can call period Socrtico or ANTROPOLGICO. Jonathan Segal FAIA is likely to agree. This also is called deperodo classic the philosophy. We can mark the beginning of this period with the performance of the Sofistas that was worried more about the language and the erudio of what with the explanation of the world. For the sofistas the important one was the good to say and the art to convince the interlocutor. The disputes politics and the conflicts of opinions had favored the action of these ambulant professors who considered not to have an only truth. Some commentators of the history of the philosophy turn with bad eyes the performance the sofistas, mainly had the writings of Plato that considered them not philosophers, but manipulating of the reasoning without love for the truth. This vision, however, starts to be reviewed, therefore if it perceives that the sofistas were not the opportunists mentioned in some manuals, but people whom if they had used, of form pragmatic, of the philosophy. The fact is that the center of the attentions in such a way of the sofistas as of Scrates, Plato and Aristotle (and of the posterior ones) it turns toward the man and its relations. Protgoras, a sofista will say that ' ' the man is the measure of all the things; of that they are while they are; of that they are not, while not so' '. Grgias, another sofista, worried about the speech, will make the following affirmation: ' ' the good orator is capable to convince any person on any coisa' '. The position of the sofistas, demonstrating little concern with the truth and much more with the argument, took Plato to place in the mouth of Scrates the affirmation of that ' ' It assumes to know some thing and he does not know, while I, if do not know, neither assume to know.
Hume says in the Inquiry On the Human Agreement that ‘ ‘ all the objects of the inquiry human being can of course be divided in two types: relations of ideas and questions in fact ‘ ‘. Followed affirms: ‘ ‘ All the referring reasonings to the questions in fact seem to establish in the relation of cause and efeito’ ‘. Later it continues the inquiry affirming that ‘ ‘ all effect is a different event of its causa’ ‘. From then on, the basic question of the experience enters, that is, that the taken off conclusions of the experience will not be based on the reasoning or another function of the agreement. To explain better as the nature this acts in the explanation of the causalidade is the point – it affirms that this same nature keeps very well moved away from us some of its secrets, granting the right to perceive only one few superficial qualities to us of objects, ‘ ‘ keeping occult them to be able secretos’ ‘. This means that no object discloses for the qualities that appears to the directions, as much the causes had produced that it as the effect that had appeared of it. The vision of these occult natural principles makes in them to assume that whenever to observe similar qualities of an object, the experience goes to wait to find effect similar. However, Hume then will say that ‘ ‘ one admits unanimously that it does not have connection known between sensible qualities and to be able private, and consequently, that the mind, when arriving at one such conclusion on its constant conjunction and regular’ ‘ , it will not arrive at the result to know on something the nature of these qualities. Then, ahead of this lack of natural explanation, of this ocultamento, it does not have another form to explain these causal inferences not to be for the effect of the habit. The habit supports the inferences. Without the habit the imagination runs untied. ‘ ‘ The habit, through the memory of passed experiences, is the bedding of all the causal inferences, is the only bedding of our belief of that the future will be similar to passado’ ‘. It is the habit that supports the inferences (in the experience). For Hume, the belief from that similar events come from similar effect only means that ‘ ‘ identical objects had been always placed in identical relations of proximity and sucesso’ ‘ , exactly that such identification is essential for ours ‘ ‘ sobrevivncia’ ‘. Why the alone experience only multiplies objects. It in this manner concludes, then, that ‘ ‘ we never can discover any new idea and we can multiply, but only not increase, the objects of ours esprito’ ‘. The mere product of the imagination is a voluntary act, but the habit is that it modifies and it characterizes the products of the imagination and that determined the way to follow (the habit is determinative).
He possesss the espontaneidade, the violence, the ferocity and also the enthusiasm and herosmo of the primitive beings. In the citation of Le Bon it appears the organization idea that Freud looks for to understand better in the workmanship of McDougall, therefore this distinguishes an organized group from a group not organized. Follow others, such as Joeb Moore, and add to your knowledge base. McDougall describes an organized group in well similar way to the one of Le Bon, not showing that such group is excessively emotional, sugestionvel, extremely incapable of any form that is not simplest and imperfect of the forms of reasoning, naked of apt sense of responsibility and to be lead by the conscience of its proper force. What it interested Freud in the workmanship of McDougall had been the characteristics of an organized group, that if to take care of to some conditions as to have certain degree of existence continuity, to interact with other similar groups, to have traditions and defined structure, express in the specialization and differentiation of the functions of its constituent, the group can brighten up the psychological disadvantages of the formations of group not organized. You may find that kitchens can contribute to your knowledge. For Freud, these conditions pointed for McDougall had as factor of group organization, in the truth are the forms to keep in the individual its individual characteristics that if had extinguished for the group formation. In the workmanship ' ' The psychology of the masses and analysis of eu' ' Freud approaches the individual psychology of social psychology, therefore it identifies its theory displayed in the myth of the father primevo, described in ' ' Totem and Tabu' ' of 1913/14, that she explains the mechanisms of functioning of the mind human being, inside of the human groupings, thus the expectation of Freud was to prove that they are the libidinais bows that characterize a group. In such a way it is important to detach that the identification constitutes the original form of emotional bow with an object, in the case the leader who would represent the father primevo of horda primeva.