Final Fantasy Ii Dawn Of Souls Gameshark

Film Series-philo, 2011

Issue

anthropological film series edge

24/2/2011

Guidelines selections (how to focus the eye) for the analysis of "The Lord of the Flies" (1963). Peter Brook
I.
- Detect how children organize what does the organization respond? Why accept it?
- Can you envision a division of labor?
- Is there common goals?, Is establishing clear rules of coexistence?
- What general appreciation of nature and man are present in the first part of the film?


II - Identify the symbolic elements appear throughout the film, which govern or modify the behavior of the protagonists.


III - Of what nature is the conflict that divides the group "based on what is redefining the power relations within it?
- Try to identify the most important features of the two conceptions of human nature that arise in this film.

Activity 1 Read the following excerpt from The man's place in the cosmos (Max Scheler):

essential difference between man and animal
Here comes the crucial question for our problem. If granted the animal intelligence, is there more than a mere difference of degree between man and animal? Is there an essential difference? Or is there something in man completely different from the essential degrees and treated far superior to them, something that suits him just specific mind, something the intelligence and the choice is not exhausted and not even touch?
Here is where the paths are separated more clearly. One would like to reserve the intelligence and choice to deny the man and animal. Say, then, without doubt, an essential difference., But the state where, in my opinion, does not exist. The others, in particular all schools evolutionists Darwin and Lamarck, deny that there is a final difference between man and animal, because the animal already has intelligence. They are therefore supporters in one way or another, the great monistic theory about man, described as the theory of homo faber., And do not know, of course, any kind of metaphysical being, nor any man's metaphysical, that is, no distinct relationship of man as such with the bottom of the universe.
As for my part, I can not but strongly reject both doctrines. I argue that the essence of man and what we might call its unique place are far above what we call intelligence and power to choose, and could not be reached, but that intelligence and imaginásemos enhanced the ability to choose quantitatively even to infinity [...] The new principle which makes man a man is alien to everything we call life, in the broadest sense, as in the inner psychic life or external. What makes a man a man is a principle that is opposed to all life in general., A principle which, as such, can not be reduced to "natural evolution of life", but if it is to be reduced to something can only be the supreme foundation of things, ie the same basis that even the "life" is a partial manifestation. The ancient Greeks held the existence of this principle and called it the "right." We prefer to use to designate this X, a more comprehensive word [...] spirit. "

[...] Such a "spiritual" is no longer bound to their impulses, or the surrounding world, but is "free to the world around it", is open to the world. Such a spiritual being having "world." Can be raised to the dignity of "objects" centers "resistance" and their world reaction environment, which also are given to him originally and that the animal is lost ecstatic. You can grasp at first how to be same of these "objects" without the limitation that world of objects or their presence experience by the power of vital impulse system and sensitive organs and functions it is based.

[...] Spirit is, therefore, objectivity., Is the possibility of being determined by the manner of the objects themselves. And we say it is "subject" or carrier of spirit creature, whose treatment with external reality has been invested in dynamically sense opposite to the animal.

[...] The Gathering, self-consciousness and the power and possibility of converting an object primitive impulse withstand, are therefore unbreakable one structure, which is exclusively human. With this become self-conscious with this new thinking and concentration of its existence, that makes the spirit is given to both the second essential feature of man: man can not only raise the "average" to the dimension of "world" and make the " resistance "objects", but can also, and this is the most admirable objective-make their own physiological and psychological constitution and each of their psychic experiences. Only by this can also shape their lives freely. The animal hears and sees, but without knowing who hears and sees [...] The animal lives as his own impulses, but as movements and repulsions of the things same environment. Even primitive man, which is found in certain animal traits to the next yet-not says: "I hate this thing", but "this thing is taboo." The animal does not have a "will" to survive on their impulses and can change and continuity in moving from their states Psychophysics. An animal is ever going to stop, so to speak, a different thing to "want" originally. It is deep and precisely what Nietzsche says: "Man is the animal that can promise.."
[...] would have said then that there is a gradation, in which a primitive will be leaning more and more about himself en la arquitectura del Universo, e intimando consigo mismo por grados cada vez más altos y dimensiones siempre nuevas, hasta comprenderse y poseerse íntegramente en el hombre”.


En base a este fragmento trabaje las siguientes cuestiones:

- Reflexione acerca de la diferencia “esencial” que plantea Scheler entre hombre y animal en relación a este film ¿En qué escenas y personajes ve reflejada esta diferencia? Justifique

- ¿A qué atribuye las conductas de Jack y su grupo en el marco de las discusiones que Scheler mantiene con filósofos y científicos?

Reason Lost Orkester Soundbank Disc

Activity Initial Course No. 2, 2011 Initial Course

Actividad Nº 2
Lea el siguiente fragmento Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes), and from the theoretical framework proposed by this philosopher, perform an interpretation of anthropological and political aspects present in the film.

Chapter XIII of the "natural condition" of mankind, with respect to their happiness and their misery
men equal by nature. Nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and of the spirit that, while a man is sometimes obviously stronger in body or more astute understanding that another, as are regarded in Overall, the difference between man and man is not so important that one can claim, based it, for himself any benefit to which another may not suck as him. Indeed, with respect to bodily strength, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret plots or confederated with one that is in the my-mo danger he is. From equality proceeds
mistrust. From this equality in terms of capacity is derived equality of hope about achieving our goals. This is because if two men want the same thing, and can in no way, Tarla enjoyed both, they become enemies, and the road leading to the end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) attempt to destroy or victimize each other. Hence, an attacker is not afraid of anything but no-gular power of another man, if someone plant, sow, build or po-see a convenient place, it should probably expect to see-gan others, with their forces united, to dispossess and deprive not only the fruits of their labor, but also of his life or his free-dom. And the invader, in turn, is in the same danger with respect to others.
of distrust, war. Given this situation of mutual distrust, there is no such reasonable procedure for a man to protect himself, as anticipation, ie the rule by force or by cunning to all men as you can, within the time required until nin-No other power is able to threaten. This is not nothing but it requires its own preservation, and is usually allow-Tido. As some pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, continued beyond what their security requires, others in different circumstances would be happy staying within modest limits, if not increase their strength through the invasion may not survive for a long time, they are placed only in defensive plan. Therefore be necessary for the conservation to a man increase his mastery over one's fellows, should be allowed too.
addition, men do not experience any pleasure (but on the contrary, a strong dislike) meeting, where there is no power that can be imposed on them. Indeed, every man believes that his companion should value it just as he values \u200b\u200bhimself. And in the presence of all signs of contempt or understatement, try naturally, as they can dare to do so (which those who do not recognize nin-gun common power to hold, it is enough to make them destroy each other ), 'boot a higher estimation of their dispute, inflicting some damage, and the other by example.
Thus we find in the nature of man three leading causes of discord. First, competition; second, distrust, and thirdly, glory. The first cause
encourages men to attack for what-Grar a benefit, and second, to achieve security, the third, to gain reputation. The first makes use of violence to become owner of individuals, women, children and cattle men, and second, to defend them, the third-curre re force by insignificant, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, or any sign of underestimation, either directly in their persons or indirectly in their offspring, their friends, their nation, their profession or in his name. Out of State
civil war there are always each against all. Yet it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to frighten all are in the condition or state which is called war, a war that it is everyone against everyone. Because war is not only fighting when the act of fighting, but occurs during the time period in which the will to fight is manifested enough. Thus the notion of time must be taken into account with respect to the nature of war as to the nature of the climate. In effects and the nature of the bad weather does not lie in one or two showers, but the propensity 'to rain for several days, and the nature of war consists not in the current struggle, but in the provision ma- fest themselves to it for as long as there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
are inconveniences of such a war. In conse-you, all that is specific to a time of war, du-during which each man is an enemy of the other, it is natural also in the time men live without other security than what their own strength and his own invention may proportions. In such a situation there is no opportunity for the industry, as its fruit is uncertain, and therefore there is no farming, no navigation, nor use items that can be imported by sea den, and buildings comfortable, no instruments for move and remove things that require much strength, or knowledge of the earth, not counting time, no arts, no letters, no society, and worst of all, there is continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
In such a war nothing is unfair. In this war of all against all, there is a consequence: that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and illegality, justice and injustice have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice. In war, force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are no powers or the body or spirit. If they were, could be in a man who was alone in the world, as given his feelings and passions. Are those qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitary state. It is also natural that in this condition there is no property no dominion, no distinction between you and me, only belongs to each one what they can take, and only so much you can keep it. This can state-mars of this miserable condition in which the man is at the hands of simple nature, although it has some possibility of overcoming this state, in part by their passions, partly because of his reason.
Passions that incline men to peace. The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, the desire for things that are necessary for a comfortable life-expectancy and to obtain them is through work. The reason suggested adequate norms of peace, which can reach men by mutual consensus. These rules are, on the other hand, are called laws of nature: I will refer to them, more particularly, in the next two chapters.

Wedding Templates In Spanish

Activity No. 3, 2011 Initial Course

Activity 3
Read the following passage from The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and tell us what's critique of the anthropological Hobbesian - present in the film in the figure of Jack - . Justify



CHAPTER I Purpose of this book

Man is born free, and yet lives everywhere in chains. The same love is considered, it remains so to be less a slave than the others. How has this transformation? I do not know. What can give it the stamp of legitimacy? I think I can resolve this issue. If
not serve more than force and the effects derived from it, say: "As a people is bound to obey and obeys, it does well, as soon as it can shake the yoke, and shakes him, works even better since regaining his freedom with the same right that was taken from, the test was created to enjoy it.
Otherwise, it was not worth never take it away. "But the social order is a sacred right which underlies all others. However, this right is not a natural right: it is founded on conventions. Try to find out what are those conventions, but before reaching that point, I fix or determine what I say.

CHAPTER II

of the first companies
The oldest of all societies, and the only natural, is the family, but children do not remain attached to the parent more than during the time they need it for conservation.
As soon as this need ceases, the natural links are dissolved. Children free from the obedience they owed to the father and this relieved of care owed to those, either come to enjoy the same independence. If you remain together, is no longer enforced and, naturally, but voluntarily, and the family itself can not exist only by convention.
That freedom is therefore common of human nature. His main law is to secure their own preservation, his first cares are those due to him. Reached the age of reason, being the sole judge of the means to be preserved, consequently conviértese master of himself.
The family is then, if you will, the first model of political societies: the head is the image of the father, the people of the children, and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty but not instead of its usefulness. The only difference is that, in the family, parental love reward the father of the care lavished on their children, while in the state, the pleasure of command who supplies or replaced the love that the boss feels for his constituents.
[...] CHAPTER III


The right of the strongest
Strongest ever is not enough to be always the master or lord, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, ironically made and really looks set to start. But we never explain this word? Force is a physical power, and I see that morality can result from their effects. Yielding to force is an act of necessity, not will, at best, may be prudent.
In what sense may be a duty? Assume for a moment This supposed right, I say that it is inexplicable gibberish, because if the force is the right, as the effect changes with the cause, any force greater than the first, amend the law. Since it can disobey with impunity, we can legitimately, and since the strongest is always right, but is not attempting to be. What, then, a right which perishes when force stops? If we must obey by force is not necessary to obey out of duty, and if the force disappears, the obligation does not exist. It is therefore right that the word adds nothing to the strength or means nothing here. Obey
powers. If this means: yield to the force, a provision is good, but superfluous. I answer that will never be violated. All power emanates from God, I admit, but any disease as well. Will he be banned for it, seek medical advice? If a bandit me in a jungle, I will, not only by force, but may even prevent it, bound in conscience to give my bag? Why, in short, the gun he has is a power? Agree, then, that the force does not make right and that no one is obliged to obey only the lawful powers. So my question is always up early. CHAPTER VI



guess the social pact men arrived at the point where the obstacles to their conservation in the natural state than the forces which each individual can use to stay there. Then this primitive state can not exist, and mankind would perish if not change his ways.
However, as men can not engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, have no other means of preserving the form by adding a sum of forces able to surpass the resistance of them together with a one end and make them work together and conformity.
This sum of forces can not be born but the competition of many, but, being the force and freedom of every man the main instruments for conservation, how could engage without harming without neglecting the obligations you have for yourself? This difficulty, namely my view, can be stated as follows:
"Find a form of association which defends and protects the common force the person and property of each partner, and why each one, joining all not obey but himself and remain as free as before. " This is the fundamental problem whose solution gives the social contract.
clauses of this contract are in such a manner determined by the nature of the act, that the slightest modification would make them useless and void so that, even if they were never formally set out, are everywhere the same and have been everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until that violated the social contract each regains his original rights and recover their natural liberty, the conventional loss of which had given up first.
These clauses, well studied, are reduced to one, namely the total alienation of each associate with all his rights to the entire community, because, first, completely giving each of the partners, the condition is the same for all , and still the same, none has interest in making it expensive for others.
Furthermore, carrying out the sale without reserve, the union is as perfect as can be, without any partner has anything to complain because if there remain some rights to individuals, as there would be no common superior who could adjudicate between them and the public , each being to some extent his own judge, would pretend to be all over soon and consequently, the natural pregnant and partnership subsists necessarily become tyrannical or worthless.
In short, giving each individual at all is not given to anyone, and as there is a partner of which is not acquired the same right is transferred, earns the equivalent of all that is lost and more strength to keep what you have.
If discarded because of the social compact what is not of essence, we find that is reduced to the following terms: "Everyone puts together his person and all his power under the supreme direction of general will, and each member considered as an indivisible part of all. " This act of association
instantly converts the particular person of each contracting party, in a normal and collective body, composed of as many members as votes is the assembly, which receives from this act its unity, its common self, his life and will. The public person is, therefore, by the union of all others, once took the name of the city and today the republic or body politic, which is called state when active power compared with their peers. As partners, they take collectively the name of the people, particularly the citizens as participants in the sovereign authority, and subjects to be subject to the laws of the State.
But these terms are often confused, being taken for one another, enough to know when they are used to distinguish them precisely.

Trouble Shooting A Enerstat Et52 Thermostat

Heraclitus in the early work of Nietzsche

By Juan Bautista García Bazán

Chair: Theory of Knowledge

school year: 2010

"From the standpoint of historical-philological may still be possible to demonstrate that nietszchiana conception of truth as an" illusion "comes from Heraclitus, or, in other words, Nietzsche would have copied out and reading this author . Let the historians philosophy the satisfaction of discovering such relationships based on these loans. "
Heidegger: Seminars in Freiburg on Nietzsche

These s word of Heidegger, the seminar devoted to Nietzsche in years 1936-1940, alluding mainly to fr. point of Heraclitus, the 28DK: "For the most esteemed (dokimótatos) knows (gnóskei) things apparent (dokéonta) and saves them, and yet the judge Justice makers and witnesses of lies."
Not only will our Heideggerian analysis of this sentence. Can say, In any case, the truth as illusion would refer to that knowledge, who ran the "most estimates" - the "apparent things, false or deceptive. What is perhaps striking is that the heading is drawn and copied Nietzsche, the philosopher of Ephesus, these issues. Certainly there
Heraclitus brands in most of the works of Nietzsche. For example, in Posthumous Writings of summer-autumn of 1884, reads:
"The philosophy of the Vedas and Heraclitus are my predecessors: that the world is a divine play and is beyond good and evil." Also, another clear reference in these writings, offers a year later: "The game, useless, as an ideal of who is overaccumulated of force, as childish. The childishness of God, in Greek Passon country .... " Obviously the two events were inspired by the fragment 52DK:
"time of life (AION) is a child (country) playing (paisson) the dice, a child the kingdom." Heidegger
But strictly speaking the concept of truth. And the title essay of 1873, Nietzsche, mentioned the word: On the truth and falsehood in an extra moral sense ( Über Wahrheit und Lüge im Sinne außermoralischen ). The first page of this work, said (25):

"In a secluded corner of the universe, where bright innumerable solar systems, there once was a star in which some clever animals invented knowledge. It was the arrogant and deceitful minute" history universal ", but only a minute. After a few breaths of nature that star froze, and the clever animals had to die. Someone could have invented a fable and yet not have sufficiently illustrated the dire state, dark and fleeting ; senseless and capricious in that it shows the human spirit in nature. There were eternities in which there existed, and when it disappears no nothing happened, because for that intellect no function beyond human life [...] "

spoken knowledge of its deceptive nature, but also the nature of eternity, and of human life. All these terms refer to one or other references to Nietzsche's posthumous fragments: The world as a divine play, divine, and understood the reference to the Vedas, as a god is rolled back, such as India that divinity is surrounded by bubbles, which preserves or destroys, according to his own pleasure, the world etc., but also Heraclitus are the eternities, is the nature, cosmos life (aion) which behaves like a child, of course it is the innocence, that aspect would be present in Zarathustra, the child playing with dice, and you can stop and break down the pieces , regardless of the consequences. And is this other life, human life, which in comparison with the divine, is shown below and miserable ...

Say this characterization of human knowledge, but is presented in terms of a hidden story, moreover, not only allusions to the thought of Heraclitus, but also references to a particular worldview, the Greek. For Nietzsche, speaking of knowledge, of truth and falsehood, is installed in the belief that the universe is cyclic, not linear. And from that point of view, it seems that Nietzsche was opposed epistemological conception different from that of modern Western thought: think of Hegel or positivism, as inheritors of the Judeo-Christian temporality, speak of a linearity, irreversible progress their systems. In this sense, beyond the character essay of this work, Nietzsche raises or installed from a different position, or the use of the Greek tradition, and particularly the philosophy of Heraclitus. What was this strategy, if Nietzsche indeed sought to contrast it with the philosophy of his time? And second, how much credit can be given to the words of Heidegger, referring to the readings and loans that would have removed Nietszsche philosopher of Ephesus?. This is what I try to point out below.

When we speak of knowledge and sensation in man is said (26): "... that pride linked to hearing and feeling, which puts a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, and deceives on the value of existence, because it carries with it the most flattering evaluation of knowledge. " And again: "Its effect more ... general is deception. "

This reference

knowledge (Erkenntnis ) and deception (Täuschung) read an echo of fr. 56DK:

"He tricked (exepátentai) men with respect to knowledge (gnosis) of visible things (phanerons prapplesíos), in the same way that Homer, who was the wisest of all Greeks. Because he too was misled (exetátesan) children who killed a louse, when he said, "what we saw and we (eidomen elábomen kai), so we let him aside, and we did not see or take, that we take" .

Here is the same reference of the two terms: the knowledge and deception. Secondly, it is interesting to note that the reference has to do with things visible and Homer. This may relate to the fr. 28DK wearing Heidegger are the most esteemed ( dokimótatos) as Homer, the wisest of all Greeks ( Ellénon sophóteros panton ), those who know ( gignoskein ), some, things are apparent ( dokéonta) , the other, things visible ( phanerons prapplesíos ). Is this use of Heraclitus, if correct, pointing to a western philosopher? Because The reference was to Homer, who did not understand the riddle of these young people, and as we passed elsewhere Aristotle (fr. 8, on the poets) this situation had seized the Poet, causing his death. Irrespective of the tests to be offered, or the apparently labile nature of these comparisons, it should continue with the text (27):

"The intellect, as a means of preservation of the individual, unfolds its greatest strength in the act of pretending, because this is the resource with which individuals are kept [...] "

The intellect is related to life, the life of man is said to have deployed his greatest strength in the act of pretending ( entfaltet Hauptkräfte in der seine Verstellung ). At this point Nietzsche continues without departing from the Heraclitean reading: Life of man as artistic activity. In so doing we discover the reflection of God that creates pleasure, to have that extra strength. The man does the same. Forger activity in extra-moral sense here is clear: cheating, lying, slandering, but also represent, as man's own activity.

"Moreover, throughout his life the man fooled by night dream without question his sense of moral stop [...] (27). "

This may relate to three fragments of Heraclitus about the metaphor of sleep: "But other men were hidden (lanthánei) the things they do awake, just as they forget ( epilanthánontai) of the things that make sleeping "(1DK)," We must not act and talk like them that sleep "(74DK). For the waking there is a common world ... those who sleep become a private one (89DK).

But if there is a reference that is not in doubt about these relationships with these Heraclitean, is presented immediately (27):

"What man knows itself from itself? Could be seen even once, exposed as an illuminated? Did not hidden nature of most things, even his own body [...]. " Clearly

resonates here fr. 123 DK: "Nature loves to hide." That nature was previously identified with the eternities, in the words of Nietzsche, with the game, and Heraclitus, the life of the cosmos (AION), is what men do can be viewed on its own poiesis. Here would be another more definite budget reappear in other works. The self ( Selbst) as the voice of the body, that pride, these forces (greed, cruelty, murder) that consciousness, the logical or theoretical knowledge can not even suspect. "Only through forgetfulness can man come to assume that it has [is] the truth" (29).

That truth, defined in terms of "illusions" ( Täuschung) (33) is what people forget to activity-theoretical sense: that the words were born of metaphors, images or intuitions pristine then solidify, crystallize into that, but words to correspond with reality. Forgetting as a process by passing some men in Heraclitus, but also, as one deception as to the knowledge of the apparent, and as knowledge from the most esteemed, or teacher of Hellas, Homer. Was it a coincidence that the vocabulary of the young Nietzsche was so similar to that of Heraclitus?

Nietzsche In the second chapter makes a veiled reference to last fr. Heraclitus (44):
"But the man himself has an invincible tendency to be deceived and is as enchanted with happiness when the bard tells legends as true or when the actor playing the role of king, royal acts more that it shows the reality. "

The quote speaks of the Greeks, on time, and is described in terms of the sentence 104 DK:
"But what is intelligence (nóos ) or mind (Fren ) in them ? Believe ( peithontai ) to the bards of the people and served as master of the crowd, not knowing that the majority is poor and few are good. " Appointment of the intellect and speaks of belief in Nietzsche and enchantment fooled by the same agents.

From all this it may be concluded, synthetically as follows:

The influence of the philosophy of Heraclitus, Nietzsche does not seem fitting. Not only is shown as appellant in relation to the style employed by the German philosopher but also as essential as it appears as structuring of the same argumentative logic of the text. We speak of knowledge, intellect, truth, lie, vocabularies that refer in the first instance, the repertoire of modern philosophy terms, for example, presented with rationalism, however, Kantianism and Hegelianism. It is known debt and turn the rejection of certain concepts of philosophy that Nietzsche schpenhaueriana raised in The origin of the tragedy and in his most mature. But here the references are epistemological and can be extended to land identified, but are also more generic, and the chosen tone, to be essay, might suggest that Nietzsche does not intend to look an explicit attack on any contemporary philosopher. Although it is true that the words almost words and phrases copied from Heraclitus, perhaps to suggest some clues: Greek philosophy as a way out of the pose, seen as reductionist, contemporary philosophy, for if we think about the ability forger as a sort of a priori condition in men, the discussion reinsertaría, probably in the field of theory of knowledge. This operative is given, we might almost say, unconsciously, and in this regard would be located in a sense beyond the moral but also a natural, cosmic, as a reflection of the power of certain forces of the universe. In that act innocent, find peace, pleasure, and provides the values \u200b\u200bto make a culture, a civilization. Both the positive and the negative of such activity, we saw, is explained in terminology and in a Heraclitean conception. This pattern of Greek, and mainly by Heraclitus, is a constant in the thinking of this young philosopher: to serve the study devoted to Wagner, will be on the redefinition of the philosophy of Schopenhauer: the constant struggle of opposites, of drunkenness and sleep, the night light of the Apollonian or of Dionysus, and categories to explain to the music , the experience of philosophy, but ultimately refer further explanation, and constituting, as tensions primacy of the epistemological foundation of the philosopher of Ephesus.
We believe that these slurs on the thought of Heraclitus are present in Nietzsche. Sometimes more visible, others less so. Why Nietzsche joins the terms of knowledge-cheating-lying-dream talk about men? You wanted to be a new Heraclitus leaving, in turn, another puzzle? The philosophy in this sense as a talk about the puzzling, mysterious and tragic.

Bibliography
Heidegger: Heidegger M. (1961), Nietzsche I. Paris: Gallimard.
Heraclitus: Cornavacca, R. (2008). Presocratics. I. Fragments Bilingual Edition. Buenos Aires: Losada.
Heraclitus: Colli, G. (I, 1995, II, 2008, III, 2010). Greek Wisdom. Madrid: Trotta.
Heraclitus: Diano, C. and Serra, G. (2000). Eraclit. I Frammenti e le Testimonianze .
NIETZSCHE: Fink, E. (1973). Philosophy di Nietzsche . Padova: Mondadori.
Nietzsche: Nietzsche, F. (2009). On Truth and Lies . Madrid: Miluna.

Persuasive Surveillance

The Phenomenology of Husserl in contrast to the Cartesian method and empirical psychologists .

Chair: Theory of Knowledge Symposium

: Science and truth in the theory of knowledge

Student: Fernando Cabrera Ricca

school year: 2010

Husserl's position

Husserl posed to the philosophy and theory of knowledge . Will try to construct a theory and method of knowledge which is proper to philosophy. Wants to make an objective science philosophy and it is proposing as its own method of philosophy to the Fe phenomenology. With this method Husserl intends to return to his knowledge universal and transcendental. In this case is going to criticize the empiricism of Hume and the positivism of Comte knowledge trying to make a simple psychological process and will pro- position Cartesian Cogito, as can be objective knowledge. But then you going to object Descartes have separated the knowledge of external reality. Husserl will return to the knowledge of its universal and objective showing that the logical forms are independent of psicologuismo yet give you back the possibility of real world knowledge without the mediation of God as in the case of Descartes. With regard to the need for a theory of knowledge that knowledge itself can be returned to its essential character Husserl says

"Darkness reigns on knowledge in regard to their meaning or essence requires a science of knowledge, a science but does not want to bring awareness to clearly essential. Knowledge does not explain as a psychological fact; or want to investigate the natural conditions under which they come and cognitive acts, nor the natural laws that are linked in his coming into being and change. Investigate this, is the task which proposes a natural science, natural science of psychic events, the experiences of individuals living psychic. The critique of knowledge wants, rather, to clarify, illustrate and bring to light the essence of knowledge and the validity claim belonging to the essence. "

The Method of Phenomenology

to the Phenomenology, subject and object knowledge are not separate, but somehow no one without the other, thus rejecting the knowledge as mere subjective representation. Husserl says that "All consciousness is consciousness of something." This means that my form can not be represented outside the object. It is only my representation: the consciousness is what connects the subject with the object. And the object is not independent of the subject by that consciousness is an "intent": that is traveling to be aware of something, that something is the essence that can be received with universal value, but not in a separate internal representation of the world but in a representation that coexists with the world since both the world and are given representation in consciousness that splits subject and object. The starting point is the awareness and consciousness the object is given to me as what is given, and that being given this essence that consciousness can see, you can show by "reductionism noselógico" bracketing all show the contingent and let the universal essence. In this sense Husserl says

"It is clear that the cogitations thing represents a sphere of absolute immanent data, in any sense to interpret immanence. In the act of seeing the pure phenomenon, the object is not out of knowledge, outside of 'consciousness', and at a time, is given in the absolute sense of itself be seen purely something. We need, however, reinforce this through epistemological reduction "

Phenomenology against empiricist reductionism

Husserl reacts against all forms psychologism. Assimilate the logic does not admit to psychology. Doing so would confuse the proper areas of each. To Husser logic can not be reduced to a psychological fact. Not denying the existence of thought have psychological characteristics, but what it denies is that the universal forms which are thought comes a psychological fact. Thus, for example, laws of logic relate to validations while the psychological facts, ignoring this science is relativized, that is away from the true knowledge. Such is the case of empiricism that reduces all objectivity that transcends a mere psychological state of the subject. With regard to Hume Husserl says

"Knowledge, in all its forms, is a psychic experience, is knowledge of the knowing subject. Before him are the objects known. But how can knowledge be certain of his fitness for the known objects? How can transcend and credibly achieve the objects? (...) Do I have to Hume, to reduce all fiction transcendent objectivity that can be explained by psychology, but can not be rationally justified? Rather this is a tough requirement "


For Husserl psychologism is the tendency to confuse the evidence with the subjective feeling of evidence. Confuse this is to relativize truth to a psychological subjectivity. Husserl called noesis the individual mental act of thinking and noema the objective content of thought. This distinction is based on the content is independent of the act of thinking. This Thus, for Husserl is a pure logic, a logic that is independent of all experience and even psychology. And this logic is the insight of universal essences.

Phenomenology and the Cartesian method


Husserl, like Descartes, accepts the existence of clear and distinct ideas as ways universal and independent of any psychologist, but he criticizes Descartes remain, of these ideas within the subject without the possibility of apprehending the world, but only through God. Husser said about the Cartesian cogito:

" Descartes, after provided evidence of the cogito wondering: what do I make sure this critical data? And answered: the clear and distinct perception. (...) We can now with Descartes, the next step we are allowed to take into consideration as we are given, like the singular cogito, by clear and distinct perception. This certainly does expect bad consequences, if we remember the Third and Fourth Meditations, evidence of the existence of God, the use of veracitas dei, etc. "


Cartesian Husserl solves the problem. This distance that the cogito Descartes conceived for the world, because for the same doubting Phenomenology is given on evidence and this evidence is collected by the consciousness and conscience as if there is consciousness of something, the subject of consciousness and the world can not be split. Put another way: Unlike the Cartesian method for real taking all that after being questioned could be thought of as a clear and distinct, the phenomenological method for making real thought everything is so clear and distinct is ie the subject is in line first to capture the essence of world shown in conscience. This power aware, to realize the essence transcends the merely empirical and contingent psychological.

Bibliography consulted:

• Edmund Husserl: Idea of \u200b\u200bPhenomenology. Madrid-Mexico, FCE, 1982
• Akoun
  André et al: Encyclopedia: Ideas, works and men. Madrid, 1977
• Ferrater Mora: Dictionary of Philosophy. Barcelona, \u200b\u200bPenínsula, 1994