Analecto

19 de fevereiro de 2018

Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.

Filed under: Livros — Tags:, , , — Yure @ 19:48

“Critique of Pure Reason” was written by Imanuel Kant. Below are some (paraphrased) thoughts found in his text.

  1. Every form of knowledge has the senses as starting point.
  2. But that doesn’t mean that knowledge is down to experience alone.
  3. Every information that isn’t formulated a priori must be logical, so it doesn’t need proof, but information proposed a posteriori can be experimental, rather than merely logical, which means that proof is needed.
  4. Up to Kant, metaphysics tried to understand some objects without even wondering if such things can be subject of rational analysis (God, for example).
  5. A meta-physician has less credibility if he is too detached from sensory information.
  6. If metaphysics doesn’t rely on empirical data, no meta-physician can be proved wrong.
  7. A lot of metaphysical data is fiction.
  8. Analytical statements are produced by decomposing data, while synthetic statements are produced by merging data.
  9. Empirical statements are always synthetic.
  10. Some questions are out of reason’s grasp.
  11. Metaphysics will never cease to exist.
  12. When you are between two equally persuasive premises, you may feel tempted to disregard both and conclude that there’s no correct solution.
  13. Metaphysics is inherently flawed.
  14. It’s also pretty contradictory.
  15. Kant wants to reform metaphysics, rather than destroying it.
  16. We need to question what kind of data is actually within reach, so we don’t try to make science over things that are impossible to reason about.
  17. A “transcendental” science is the study of our own methods to extract knowledge from the world.
  18. While our five senses can show us objects, understanding them is a rational effort of interpretation.
  19. “Transcendental aesthetics” is the study of our sensual procedures, while “transcendental logic” is the study of our thought and interpretation procedures.
  20. We can’t think without conceiving things in space-time constraints.
  21. There’s only one space, that our mind divides in sections (“here” and “there”, for example) because it can’t make sense out of the infinite as is.
  22. Some characteristics of an object are conditional.
  23. We also can not make sense out of eternity, that why we also divide time in sections (“before”, “now” and “after”, for example).
  24. That means that the only real time is an eternal “now” which has no actual constraint, while the only real space is an infinite “here”, also uncontrained, but our mind can only make sense of things by limiting them, implying that time and space as measures only exist in our head.
  25. Time and space are organs in our cognition system.
  26. Time and space, as channels through which we “feel” the world, as studied by transcendental aesthetics.
  27. A “thing in itself” doesn’t change according to our senses or according to surrounding conditions.
  28. An empirical statement, even if statistically secure, can never be completely generalized; there will always be exceptions.
  29. If an information can be traced back to the five senses, it’s knowledge about a “phenomenon” (something perceived by the senses).
  30. Intuition and concepts are two sources of knowledge.
  31. Intuition is sensual, while understanding is the interpretation of such intuitive data in order to achieve a concept.
  32. While there are common rules that are valid for all sciences, each science has also a set of rules that is only valid within it.
  33. If reality corresponds to what I think about it, then the idea I have about reality is “truth”.
  34. Something can make sense and still be wrong.
  35. That happens when the formula of the reasoning is correct, but the data used is wrong.
  36. “Transcendental analytics” means “act of decomposing an ‘a priori’ statement”.
  37. Transcendental analytics works only with statements that are internally logical and offered without empirical proof.
  38. When thinking about an event, I don’t need to relive it.
  39. “Synthesis” is the act of merging data from different objects into a single corpus of conclusive data.
  40. When talking about empirical things, you always need to give proof.
  41. Imagination is the ability to form an idea of something that you haven’t seen, heard or felt.
  42. Intuition and imagination are rooted in the five senses (when you imagine something, you also imagine it’s shape, how it sounds or how it feels).
  43. You can imagine things that are related to time, but not time itself.
  44. We can not fully know ourselves.
  45. You have learn common sense alone.
  46. Common sense is the ability to correctly employ something that was learned.
  47. If something exists in a given time, it’s real.
  48. A contradictory argument is automatically false.
  49. Thinking objectively is directing your thoughts towards something specific.
  50. “Perception” is conscious sensation.
  51. “Anticipation” is guessing, by logic, what is going to succeed, while having no empirical proof that the reasoning is correct.
  52. Time and space can be infinitely divided.
  53. Some metaphysical ideas are part of our lives, to the point of people acting as if they have been sufficiently proved.
  54. “Empirism” is knowing something using what I can perceive of it.
  55. If we want to understand something using time-based criteria, we must think in terms of succession, permanence and simultaneity.
  56. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed.
  57. It’s not possible to know things as they are, only as they appear to be (their phenomena).
  58. Presence of effect doesn’t mean that the cause has stopped acting.
  59. Something is possible when it meets the formal conditions of execution.
  60. Something is real when it meets the material conditions of execution.
  61. We lack senses to feel magnetic fields, which doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
  62. If it’s real, then it’s possible, but not every possible thing is real.
  63. A “postulate” is a conclusive statement that has no proof nor demonstration.
  64. When you make a wild guess on an issue, you still need to explain why you think that way.
Anúncios

18 de fevereiro de 2018

Does the Bible forbids drinking?

Just a quick post. You see, I have access to the search terms that people use to reach this blog, so I know more or less what people are looking for. So, recently, I noticed an on-off stream of traffic coming from people concerned with what the Bible says about alcohol. So, I think I should give those tykes some few answers.

First of all, it’s not the first time that I notice people finding this blog by looking up lunatic search terms such as “what demon is present when I masturbate”, but it’s the first time I notice such a high interest in the problem of drinking. That’s because I live in Brazil and some churches here forbid alcohol consumption. Let’s start with the question that names this entry: no where. The Bible doesn’t forbid the consumption of alcohol, period. But I notice that some search queries suggest that some religious leaders, such as pastors, are explicitly teaching that it does. For example: one of the search queries is “is it true that the Bible says that we shouldn’t put even a gulp of alcohol in the mouth?”. That’s extremely specific. If I am right, some religious leaders are saying that there is biblical evidence to support that, while, in fact, there is none. On the contrary. So, I’m happy that people are looking those things up, because that means that some people are questioning what the preacher is saying. And that’s great: many of those people are just interested in your money anyway, so they pull new prohibitions from thin air, in hopes of making you feel super guilty for not keeping up with them, raising an urge to attain forgiveness the way they want you to, which means that they try to keep you in their church by making you scared of hell. And, if they need to exploit the fact that the Bible is a huge document that no everyone has time to read, so no one knows what it actually contains, so be it.

The most common drink in biblical accounts is wine. In Genesis 27:25, we see Isaac, son of Abraham and father to Jacob, drink wine with no problem, wine given by his son. In Exodus 29:40, as well as in Leviticus 23:12 and Numbers 15:5-10, among other verses, we see that wine was accepted as offering to God. If wine was an “evil” drink, God wouldn’t accept that as offering. However, wine, because it makes a person feel “elated”, wasn’t supposed to be consumed by people who worked at the temple, at least not before duty, as we see in Leviticus 10:9. Another situation in which wine can not be consumed is when the person vows to not drink it, as we see in Numbers 6:3. But such vow is never mandatory. If I vow, indeed, I must abstain, but even such vow may only be up for a limited time (Numbers 6:20).

Another important thing to notice is that, if wine was an evil drink, Jesus wouldn’t have transformed water in wine, as we see in the second chapter of the Gospel According to John. A lot of people drank from that wine, which was of the best quality (John 2:9).

Someone might ask: “did that wine have alcohol?”. Yes, in Brazil, there’s a lot of a people who think that the wine consumed back then could be 100% alcohol-free. When everyone was speaking in their own native language, and yet everyone was understanding each other, someone asked if those people didn’t drink wine (Acts 2:13). That’s because, from an outsider’s point of view, a scene in which everyone is speaking a different language, while still managing to have an harmonious conversation, must be a prank. Ephesians 5:18 also says that we shouldn’t get “drunk” with wine, but it’s impossible to get drunk from drinking an alcohol-free beverage. That means that the wine back then had alcohol. Even if simple distillation was used, there would be no way, with the technology available back then, to fully isolate the alcohol that is present in a given amount of wine. Even if such method were to be employed, the wine wouldn’t lose all of it’s alcohol.

Last, but not least, wine is recommended by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:23, not to mention it’s also a mandatory element in the Lord’s Supper, which is a solemn christian ritual done in memory of Jesus’ sacrifice. So, the Bible doesn’t forbid wine, but actually encourages it’s responsible consumption. Your preacher is lying to you.

So, knowing that wine isn’t prohibited by the Bible, that wine is actually endorsed by the Bible and that wine is an alcoholic beverage, we can conclude that alcohol consumption isn’t sin, but, at most, you should avoid being drunk. Drink moderately. Are you happy now?

After writing this, I hope the readers who find my blog develop a more critical approach to the teaching given in the church they attend to. While that’s not an exclusively protestant problem (there’s a lot of gratuitous prohibitions among catholics too), remember that the requisites to be a prostestant preacher are really low, that’s why there’s so many of them. A lot of them never even read the Bible completely, not even once, while I read it completely three times already. And we know that faith sells. So, if you see your local pastor saying something fishy, at least look up online to see if what he says has biblical foundation. If he is quoting false references, admit to yourself that you are being fooled. Leave that church and go do something else.

17 de fevereiro de 2018

“Onde fala na Bíblia que não se deve beber?”

Filed under: Livros, Organizações, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yure @ 22:45

Uma postagem rapidinha. Veja, eu tenho acesso aos termos de pesquisa que trazem as pessoas a este lugar, então eu sei mais ou menos o que o pessoal está procurando. Então, recentemente houve um fluxo intermitente de pessoas querendo saber qual é a opinião da Bíblia Sagrada em relação ao álcool, então eu creio que eu possa elucidar as coisas aqui.
Primeiramente, não é a primeira vez que eu recebo um número de visitantes com termos de pesquisa exóticos, do tipo “qual demônio está presente quando você bate uma”, mas é a primeira vez que eu percebo um interesse tão elevado no problema do álcool. Comecemos resolvendo a questão que dá nome a esta entrada: em lugar nenhum. A Bíblia Sagrada não proíbe o consumo de bebida alcoólica, ponto. Mas o que eu percebo é que alguns termos de pesquisa dão a entender que tem pastor dizendo que esse é o caso. Por exemplo, um dos termos de pesquisa diz “onde está escrito na Bíblia que não se deve colocar nem um pouco de bebida na boca?”. Isso é extremamente específico. Se for como eu estou pensando, alguns líderes religiosos estão dizendo que existe evidência bíblica sobre a proibição do álcool, mas essa evidência não existe. Pelo contrário. Então, fico feliz por ter gente pesquisando isso na Internet, porque quer dizer que algumas pessoas que atendem à igreja estão questionando o ensinado dado ali. Isso é ótimo: muitos pastores e talvez até padres só estejam mesmo interessados no seu dinheiro e, inventando proibições que não existem, fazem você sentir necessidade do perdão que oferecem, ou seja, te incentivam a permanecer na igreja pelo medo.
A bebida mais comum nas histórias bíblicas é o vinho. Em Gênesis 27:25, vemos que Isaque, filho de Abraão e pai de Jacó, tomou vinho sem nenhum problema das mãos de seu filho. Em Êxodo 29:40, bem como em Levítico 23:13, Números 15:5, Números 15:7, Números 15:10, entre outros, vemos que o vinho é aceito como oferta a Deus. Se o vinho fosse uma bebida “do mal”, Deus não o aceitaria como oferta. No entanto, o vinho, por deixar a pessoa “alegre”, não era uma bebida adequada para servidores do templo, na medida em que estavam em serviço, de forma que Levítico 10:9 interdita o consumo de vinho antes da entrada na tenda de reunião, mas não há interdição contra o consumo de vinho, por exemplo, depois do serviço sagrado. Uma outra situação em que o vinho ou a cidra são interditados é o voto de nazireu, conforme Números 6:3, mas ele não é obrigatório. Se eu fizer esse voto, eu devo me abster, mas nada me obriga a votá-lo em primeiro lugar. Em adição, o voto de nazireu tem tempo limitado, de forma que o votante pode beber vinho depois que o período do voto acabar (Números 6:20).
Outra coisa que é importante ressaltar é que, se vinho fosse uma bebida maldita, Jesus não teria transformado a água em vinho no segundo capítulo do Evangelho Segundo João. Um monte de gente bebeu aquele vinho, que era da melhor qualidade (João 2:9).
Alguém pode perguntar: “mas esse vinho era alcoólico?”. Quando estavam todos falando em sua própria língua e ainda assim se entendendo, alguém perguntou se a multidão não estava cheia de “vinho doce” ou “mosto” (Atos 2:13). Isso porque, pra quem via todo o mundo falando em línguas diferentes e, apesar disso, parecerem estar em harmonia, aquilo só podia ser porque estava todo o mundo bêbado. Afinal, pra quem via, parecia brincadeira. Efésios 5:18 também diz que não devemos nos “embriagar” com vinho, mas não é possível se embriagar com um líquido sem álcool. O que significa que o vinho da época era alcoólico. Mesmo que a destilação simples fosse empregada por alguém, não é possível, por esse método, com as limitações da época, seguramente remover todo o álcool de uma porção de vinho, de forma que ele permanecia alcoólico mesmo que destilado.
Por último, não menos importante, o vinho é recomendado por Paulo em 1 Timóteo 5:23 e é um elemento necessário à Ceia do Senhor, a qual somos ordenados a celebrar em memória do sacrifício de Jesus. Assim, a Bíblia não apenas não proíbe o consumo de vinho, mas o ordena como parte da celebração da Ceia.
Então, sabendo que o vinho não é proibido pela Bíblia, que o vinho é recomendado pela Bíblia, que o vinho é ordenado pela Bíblia em ocasiões cristãs solenes, que o vinho é uma bebida alcoólica, mas que a embriaguez é interditada, conclui-se que ingerir álcool não é pecado, mas, no máximo, é pecado ficar bêbado. Beba com moderação. Satisfeito?
Após escrever isto, eu espero que os leitores que vêm a este site desenvolvam uma visão mais crítica do ensinamento que recebem na igreja. Esse não é um problema exclusivamente protestante (porque existem doutrinas gratuitas no catolicismo), mas saiba que o requisito pra ser pastor é muito baixo. Há muitos que não leram a Bíblia por completo nem sequer uma vez (eu já a li por completo três vezes) e nós sabemos que existem igrejas que vendem sua fé se aproveitando da ignorância dos fiéis para lhes ordenhar o dinheiro. Então, se você ouve algo do seu pastor, veja se aquilo tem fundamentação bíblica. Se não tiver tempo, olhe na Internet. E, se você perceber que seu pastor está citando referências falsas, admita que ele está mentindo pra você. Abandone aquela igreja e vá fazer outra coisa.

13 de fevereiro de 2018

Was it harrassment?

Filed under: Notícias e política, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yure @ 22:29

When I was in college, something rather odd happened to me while I climbed upstairs alone to go to the library. A girl, one of my friends, came towards me, in downstairs direction, while I walked upstairs. When she got close enough, she pat my butt. I continued my way, but, when I reached the top, I looked back at her. She was smiling playfully. I may have pulled a silly, or maybe indifferent face, but I admit that it wasn’t a bad experience. Actually, that was the closest I ever got to get laid anyway. Sad, isn’t it?

So, knowing that:

  • The act didn’t harm my body, my mind or my image, but;
  • Was a butt slap, an act frequently seen as “libidinous”, often embarrassing;

I ask: was it sexual harrassment? If yes, then harrassment is an objective concept; otherwise, it’s a subjective concept. If harrassment is an objective concept, then it’s problematic: in fact, at least in my case, it was a victimless crime. I would never report her, because she was young, had a bright future to pursue. How could I report her over something so small? I would need to be a money-thirsty mercenary. I’m only disclosing this because I don’t know where she lives, I forgot her name and there’s no records to prove that the episode has happened, so it would be impossible to start an investigation against her.

If subjective, then something may or may not be harrassment solely depending on who received the action, their judgement on the issue, not the nature of the act. For example, a man was reported for sexual harrassment because he, while taking a picture with a woman, kept her close by her waist. According to the woman, he squeezed her waist twice, which caused her such a profound psychological damage that it was like her whole person had been erased. That means that the man was reported for hugging her by the waist and giving squeezes, which supposedly traumatized the woman. But that’s not an act often seen as “libidinous”, nor is it stereotypically “embarrassing”.

If harrassment is an objective concept, we need to draw a sharp line between what’s libidinous and what is not, like I suggested to be done for statutory rape, in a way to not punish harmless acts. If it’s an subjective concept, it must become objective, to avoid allowing a person to prosecute another solely on a particular interpretation of the act, almost as if the accuser had powers of a judge.

Foi assédio?

Filed under: Notícias e política, Saúde e bem-estar — Tags:, , — Yure @ 22:16

Quando eu estava na faculdade, aconteceu um negócio bem extraordinário comigo enquanto eu andava sozinho na escada que dá para a biblioteca. Uma menina, amiga minha, veio na direção contrária, descendo a escada enquanto eu a subia. Quando ela passou por mim, ela deu um tapa no meu traseiro. Eu continuei meu caminho, mas, quando eu cheguei ao topo da escada, eu olhei pra baixo. Ela, de baixo, olhou pra mim sorridente. Eu meio que fiz uma cara indiferente, talvez meio boba, mas admito que não foi uma experiência ruim. Afinal, foi o mais perto que cheguei de dormir com uma mulher. Triste, não é?

Então, sabendo que:

  • O ato não prejudicou meu corpo, meu psicológico ou minha imagem, mas;
  • Foi um tapa no traseiro, um ato frequentemente tido por “libidinoso” e, muitas vezes embaraçoso;

Eu pergunto: o que aconteceu foi assédio? Se sim, assédio é um conceito objetivo; se não, assédio é um conceito subjetivo. Se assédio é um conceito objetivo, é um conceito problemático: com efeito, pelo menos no meu caso, seria um crime sem vítima. Eu nunca iria denunciá-la pelo que aconteceu, porque ela era jovem e tinha um futuro pela frente. Como é que eu ia arruinar a vida dela por algo tão pequeno? Só se eu fosse um mercenário a fim do dinheiro dela. Eu só estou falando isto agora porque eu não sei onde ela mora, não lembro seu nome e não há gravações que comprovem o que ocorreu, então não daria pra começar uma investigação contra ela.

Se subjetivo, então algo ser ou não assédio depende totalmente de quem sofreu a ação, dos seus sentimentos, não da natureza do ato. Por exemplo, um cara foi denunciado por assédio sexual porque ele, ao tirar uma foto com a moça, lhe pegou pela cintura. Segundo a moça, os dois apertos na cintura causaram um dano psicológico tão profundo que foi como se sua pessoa tivesse sido apagada. Então, o cara foi denunciado por abraçar a moça pela cintura e apertar-lhe ali enquanto posava para uma foto, o que supostamente traumatizou a moça. Mas esse não é um ato tido por “libidinoso” e nem “embaraçoso”.

Se o conceito de assédio é objetivo, é preciso desenhar bem uma linha entre o que é e o que não é libidinoso, como eu sugeri que fosse feito com a lei de estupro de vulnerável, pra que a lei não puna atos inofensivos. Se o conceito é subjetivo, isto é, se é crime quando eu me sinto ofendido, precisa deixar de ser e se tornar objetivo, para evitar que uma pessoa possa processar outra por uma interpretação particular de um evento, quase como se o acusador tivesse poderes de juiz.

11 de fevereiro de 2018

“Demons”, by Huib Kort and G. G.

Filed under: Notícias e política, Organizações — Tags:, , — Yure @ 11:26

“Demons: the utopian dream of safety” was written by Huib Kort and G. G. Below are some paraphrased thoughts found in their text.

  1. Our society has a series of problems, such as crime and violence, which seem to be isolated issues.
  2. But what if something in our society is fundamentally wrong, which makes all those “symptoms” point to a bigger, underlying evil?
  3. What if some of the things that our society fights against aren’t really problems?
  4. Pointing out specific problems and attacking them is an attempt to distract the population, so they don’t see that it’s our society’s model that is actually decaying.
  5. We, as society, feel scared, but that’s not the first time it happens: we felt scared during the second world war, we felt scared during the cold war, we feel scared now for other reasons.
  6. Fear is a common emotion when society is conservative.
  7. Anyone can lose the happiness they acquired with hard work, anyone can lose it at any time, that causes insecurity.
  8. People often carry an amount of fear that is not proportional to the reality of crime.
  9. No crime happens without a reason.
  10. But people are afraid of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.
  11. People are also scared of the unknown, specially if “unknown” means “immigrants”.
  12. The reasons to fear immigrants often lack solid empirical foundation.
  13. The violent sexual crimes against children are also rare, compared to other crimes, but the effort that is spent into combating that problem also isn’t proportional to the issue.
  14. Disproportional fears exist in all of us, regardless of our level of education.
  15. Those fears are often centered in current affairs, such as nuclear threat.
  16. The lives of many are led by fear.
  17. There’s “press” for the elite and “journalism” for working classes.
  18. Media plays a role in instilling fear.
  19. The media must inform people, but media also needs money, so it turns news into entertainment, which keeps a good cash flow.
  20. That also causes a quality drop in TV shows, including a drop in their ability to inform (but a increase in their ability to gossip).
  21. A candidate that manages to lure people into thinking that he is capable of ending violence once and for all can get a lot of votes, because people have the feeling that politics is the way to completely end violence.
  22. The atmosphere of fear and political impotence, leveraged by media’s selective information, makes people do their own justice (“mob justice“).
  23. And media loves mobs, because that means more stuff to report on TV.
  24. Politicians often promise things that are not allowed by the local democratic system, causing the population to confront them with their broken promises.
  25. Media is not impartial.
  26. Some laws are written after generalizing few examples.
  27. That’s a sign of opportunism and a sign that the population can’t see very far, when it comes to their history and consequences of a law.
  28. Hysteria can cause more damage than the event that originates it.
  29. Any single person who commits a hideous crime becomes the single “model” to be taken in consideration (for example: a teen commited a mass murder in school, that means that all teens are capable of that and must be controlled).
  30. If the person who committed the crime was an immigrant, for example, their behavior will be generalized to all immigrants, which is unfair.
  31. Suddenly, all men are pedophiles.
  32. Our society is parmenidic: it either is or not, with nothing in between.
  33. That’s seen as good.
  34. Whoever points out that not even half of men are potential rapists, that there are muslims who aren’t terrorists, and things of that nature, is also demonized.
  35. Society becomes a battle between good and evil, with both sides viewing themselves as the “good” side.
  36. “Rapist”, “molester” and “pedophile” have become the same thing.
  37. Further repression is demanded.
  38. Nonetheless, repression is not working.
  39. The actual goal is protecting status quo, which is profitable, from social change.
  40. It’s the status quo (politics, media and prevailing ideologies in society) that is fundamentally wrong, with everything else being symptoms of that bigger problem.
  41. A possible exit would be allowing dissenting narratives to flourish.
  42. It’s possible to think without aid of mass media.
  43. Everyone says that media is manipulative, but few are willing to take a critical look at the media they consume.

“Demons”, de Huib Kort e G. G.

Filed under: Notícias e política, Organizações — Tags:, , — Yure @ 11:13

“Demons: the utopian dream of safety” foi escrito por Huib Kort e G. G. Abaixo, alguns pensamentos parafraseados desse texto.

  1. Nossa sociedade tem uma série de problemas, como crimes e violência, que parecem isolados.
  2. Mas será que não há algo fundamentalmente errado na nossa sociedade e que torna esses problemas meros “sintomas” de um mal muito maior?
  3. E se algumas das coisas contra as quais nossa sociedade luta não forem realmente problemas?
  4. Apontar problemas isolados e combatê-los é uma tentativa de distração, para que o povo não veja que é o modelo social geral que está decadente.
  5. Nós, como sociedade, vivemos com medo, mas essa nem é a primeira vez que isso acontece: tivemos medo na segunda guerra mundial, tivemos medo na guerra fria, agora temos medo por outras razões.
  6. Medo é uma emoção comum em regimes conservadores.
  7. Qualquer um pode perder a felicidade que obteve com trabalho duro, e pode perdê-la a qualquer instante, o que nos dá uma sensação de insegurança.
  8. O medo das pessoas pode ser desproporcional à realidade do crime.
  9. Nenhum crime ocorre sem razão.
  10. Mas pessoas têm medo de estar no lugar errado, na hora errada.
  11. Pessoas também temem o desconhecido, especialmente se “o desconhecido” significar “imigrantes”.
  12. As razões para temê-los podem não ter sólida fundação empírica.
  13. Crimes sexuais violentos contra crianças também são ocorrências raras, comparados com outros tipos de crime, mas os esforços para combater esse tipo de violência também são desproporcionais à realidade.
  14. Medos desproporcionais existem independentemente do grau de educação da pessoa.
  15. Esses medos frequentemente estão centrados em problemas atuais, como a ameaça nuclear.
  16. O medo é a emoção que guia a vida de muita gente.
  17. Existe “periódico” pra elite e “jornal” pra classe trabalhadora.
  18. A mídia pode fundar e manter medos desproporcionais.
  19. A mídia deve informar o povo, mas também precisa de dinheiro, então ela transforma as notícias em entretenimento.
  20. Isso causa uma queda na qualidade dos programas de TV, incluindo uma queda em sua capacidade de informar (e um aumento na sua capacidade de fofocar).
  21. Um candidato que seja capaz de convencer o povo de que ele acabará com a violência é capaz de obter muitos votos, porque a sociedade tem a sensação de que a violência pode ser completamente eliminada para sempre por meio da política.
  22. Essa atmosfera de medo e de impotência política, incentivada por informação seletiva por parte da mídia, faz com que o povo comece a fazer justiça a sua maneira.
  23. E a mídia gosta quando alguém faz justiça com as próprias mãos, porque isso significa mais espetáculo pra mostrar na TV.
  24. Políticos prometem coisas que o sistema democrático não permite, de forma que a população depois os confronta por suas promessas quebradas.
  25. A mídia não é imparcial.
  26. Existe legislação escrita com base em eventos insuficientes.
  27. Isso é sinal de oportunismo e também sinal de que a população é míope, em relação às consequências de suas escolhas e em relação a sua própria história.
  28. Histeria pode causar mais dano do que o evento que a causa.
  29. Uma pessoa que comete um crime grave acaba se tornando o único exemplo a ser levado em consideração nas deliberações (por exemplo: um jovem cometeu um assassinato, logo todos os jovens são capazes de matar e precisam ser policiados).
  30. Se a pessoa que cometeu o crime for um imigrante, então seu comportamento será generalizado a todos os imigrantes, por exemplo.
  31. De repente, todos os homens são pedófilos.
  32. A nossa sociedade é como Parmênides: é ou não é, sem gradações.
  33. Isso é visto como bom.
  34. Quem aponta o fato de nem metade dos homens serem estupradores potenciais, de que há muçulmanos que não são terroristas, entre outras coisas, é igualmente odiado.
  35. A sociedade torna-se então um campo de guerra entre o bem e o mal, com ambos os lados se vendo como o lado “bom”.
  36. “Estuprador”, “molestador” e “pedófilo” se tornaram a mesma coisa.
  37. Há demanda por cada vez mais repressão.
  38. E no entanto, reprimir não está funcionando.
  39. O verdadeiro objetivo é proteger o estabelecido, porque o estabelecido dá dinheiro, para que o estabelecido não sofra com mudanças sociais.
  40. É o estabelecido (política, mídia e ideologias dominantes na sociedade) que está fundamentalmente errado, com todo o resto sendo sintomas desse problema maior.
  41. Uma solução possível é permitir que discursos dissidentes floresçam.
  42. É possível pensar sem a TV.
  43. Todos falam que a mídia é manipuladora, mas nem por isso a olhamos de forma crítica.

9 de fevereiro de 2018

Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason”.

Filed under: Livros — Tags:, , — Yure @ 18:11

“Critique of Practical Reason” was written by Immanuel Kant. Below are some paraphrased (not quoted) thoughts found in his text. They won’t necessary reflect my thoughts on a given subject.

  1. There’s no need for laws if freedom doesn’t exist.
  2. If you have knowledge, you may want to share it.
  3. If you don’t wish to share your knowledge, maybe you don’t actually have it.
  4. Freedom is an important concept for morals.
  5. You needn’t to come up with new words if there are already words to describe what you are saying.
  6. You can’t rationally prove that reason doesn’t exist.
  7. While mathematics can prove that matter can be infinitely divided, that’s not possible in practice.
  8. Hume wasn’t as skeptical as it’s often believed.
  9. Difference between laws and personal principles is that laws try to be universally valid.
  10. “Imperative” is a practical rule with a practical goal.
  11. An imperative is always objective.
  12. A “hypothetical imperative” is a practical rule that is only valid if I have means to attain the goal (the goal must be particular), but a “categorical imperative” is a practical rule that remains valid no matter if I have means to attain that goal or not (in this case, the goal is general, universal).
  13. Plus, a I can reject a hypothetical imperative (because the goal is particular), but, from an ethical point of view, I can not reject a categorical imperative, if it’s really categorical (because the goal is not particular).
  14. A practical principle (“maxim”) has personal happiness as goal.
  15. You are considered happy if you like your life.
  16. There are “delicate” pleasures, such as the intellectual ones.
  17. It’s your responsibility to be consistent between your actions and thoughts.
  18. All actions have happiness as goal.
  19. Being “happy” implies liking things the way they currently are (if you are unhappy with things the way they are, you may want to change them until you like them).
  20. Sometimes we do things thinking they would bring happiness, but we may be wrong.
  21. There’s no need for a law that says “love yourself”.
  22. You can’t expect everyone to act the way you do.
  23. If a categorial imperative really is categorical, it has to be universal.
  24. Even if everyone wants the same thing, they won’t want it the same way.
  25. Your will is truly free when you don’t have to care about anything other than yourself in your decision-making.
  26. You aren’t free from physics.
  27. Under the correct conditions, a strong impulse can be resisted.
  28. Dying for a good cause isn’t wrong.
  29. Before you act, think: “what if everyone else did what I’m about to do?”
  30. Human volition can be pure, but never holy.
  31. If there’s no volition, there should be no laws either.
  32. If my maxims take other people into account, they may be generalized.
  33. It’s unfair to be on the receinving end of injustice and still not do anything about it.
  34. Prudence is acting according to self-preservation.
  35. Maxims are advice, laws are orders.
  36. You can’t demand others to have something, such as happiness, when I don’t have that thing myself.
  37. Satisfaction is often out of reach.
  38. Some people do feel guilt for being benefited by an unfair act.
  39. A disporportional punishment is abuse.
  40. If you say that the real crime is receiving punishment, you are implying that it’s only bad if you are caught.
  41. A criminal who feels bad over what he did actually has a sense of morality.
  42. It’s also a virtue to do good deeds without feeling embarrassed or ashamed.
  43. If my actions are guided by a sensible goal, that goal is subjective.
  44. Don’t mistake cause and effect.
  45. Is causality an illusion?
  46. That doesn’t mean that truth is impossible, but that data extracted from phenomena is not absolute.
  47. Intellectuals tend to be more skeptical than common people.
  48. Affirmations based on causality aren’t absolute.
  49. Some people speak words that are devoid of meaning.
  50. The pure practical reason studies the effects of freedom.
  51. Your language may harm your reasoning, if it’s limited, even if your thoughts were translated into another language.
  52. There’s a difference between being (nature) and being (condition).
  53. A person can receive a painful benefit.
  54. You can’t make a law that says “seek pleasure and flee from pain”, because every person seeks pleasure and flees from pain in their own personal ways.
  55. You can’t pretend that an issue is solved if there was no conclusive debate on that.
  56. A person can hide their ignorance by using ambiguous words.
  57. Don’t give to others something you wouldn’t give to yourself.
  58. Empiricism often has nothing to do with morals.
  59. You can’t respect belongings, only people.
  60. When you admit that someone is superior, your reverence is sincere.
  61. A person can respect someone else, but without making it clear that such respect exists.
  62. Every limited creature can act on interest or according to maxims.
  63. Laws aren’t needed to do good deeds.
  64. There are two ways to follow a law: literally or pragmatically (achieving the same goal that the law tries to achieve, but without obeying the law literally).
  65. If you do your job, others should follow you as role model.
  66. Don’t use people as instruments: if you need someone’s help, make sure they will also get a benefit out of that.
  67. Duty has nothing to do with happiness.
  68. If there’s a problem in your reasoning and someone points it, admit your mistake.
  69. It’s impossible to know something “as it truly is”, but only “as my senses perceive it”.
  70. A person who doesn’t share their knowledge for public well-being can not be labelled a “philosopher”.
  71. Something is logical by identity and real by causality.
  72. Virtue and happiness may not converge.
  73. Making a poor use of reason is as valid as not using reason at all.
  74. There’s no interest without practical consequence.
  75. Faith (believing without proof) can have a rational foundation.
  76. Duty isn’t fear and isn’t hope.
  77. The value of a virtue may have no correlation with the advantage it brings.
  78. Self-respect originates when you realize that you are free.
  79. It’s freedom that gives me relevance in the universe.
  80. If you are going after hypothetical treasures, at least don’t neglect the real treasures.

Plato’s “Crito”.

Filed under: Livros, Passatempos — Tags:, , , — Yure @ 17:23
  1. One can say that you really are a happy person when they see you calm even when a disaster happens.
  2. If death is unavoidable, you can only accept it.
  3. People hate people those who care more for their money than for their friends.
  4. Still, you don’t have to care about what people think of you anyway.
  5. Spreading lies about someone can cause their indirect death.
  6. If the people could really operate great evils, they were supposed to also be capable of great good deeds (but they are not).
  7. Most people lack critical thinking, seemingly operating with randomness.
  8. Sometimes it’s cheap to buy a judge.
  9. Don’t have children, unless you are capable of suffering with them.
  10. If someone has an opinion about you, don’t accept it unless you are sure that you should accept.
  11. Socrates accepted his sentence because he was being faithful to his principles, it was a matter of integrity.
  12. Don’t accept suggestions from those who don’t know better.
  13. If you accept those, you may ruin yourself or die.
  14. Being alive isn’t enough, if you don’t live well.
  15. If you don’t do anything without considering what others would think, one can wonder how your actions amount to.
  16. If acting unfairly is always wrong, then you should seek revenge from injustice by promoting injustice.
  17. You owe respect to the ruler of the nation you belong in.
  18. The law may submit you, but the law isn’t unchangeable and you should try to change them if you think they are unfair.
  19. If you dislike the laws in your place, move to another place.
  20. If you like your nation, you may want to improve it.

O “Críton”, de Platão.

Filed under: Livros, Passatempos — Tags:, , , — Yure @ 17:23

Este livro foi escrito por Platão. Abaixo, algumas paráfrases desse texto. Elas não necessariamente reflectem minha opinião sobre um dado assunto.

  1. Uma pessoa pode dizer que você realmente é feliz ao ver você tranquilo mesmo quando uma desgraça acontece.
  2. Se a morte é inevitável, só se pode aceitá-la.
  3. As pessoas odeiam quem faz mais caso do dinheiro do que dos amigos.
  4. Apesar disso, você não precisa sempre se importar com o que pensam de você.
  5. Espalhar mentiras sobre alguém pode causar a morte indireta do caluniado.
  6. Se o povo fosse capaz de grandes males, deveria ser também capaz de grandes boas ações.
  7. Maior parte das pessoas não tem senso crítico, parecendo até operar ao acaso.
  8. Um juiz pode ser barato.
  9. Se você não for capaz de sofrer com seus filhos, não tenha filhos.
  10. Se alguém tem uma opinião de você, só aceite essa opinião se você achar que deve.
  11. Sócrates aceitou sua pena porque estava sendo fiel aos seus princípios, foi uma questão de integridade.
  12. Não aceite a opinião de quem sabe menos que você.
  13. Se você aceitar essa opinião, a de quem sabe menos, você pode se arruinar ou morrer.
  14. Não basta viver; se deve viver bem.
  15. Se você não faz nada sem antes se perguntar o que os outros achariam, me pergunto o que você faz.
  16. Se o procedimento injusto é sempre inadmissível, não se deve pagar mal com mal.
  17. Você deve respeito ao dono da nação na qual você nasceu.
  18. Embora você esteja submisso às leis, ainda pode tentar mudá-las por meios lícitos.
  19. Se você não gosta das leis de um lugar, vá para outro.
  20. Se você gosta da sua nação, quererá ajudá-la a melhorar.
Older Posts »

Crie um website ou blog gratuito no WordPress.com.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: