Part 12: (Whose Project; Does the Individual Exist; the Natural Slave?): Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015)

With this post Flora Sapio and I (and friends from time to time) continue an experiment in collaborative dialogue. The object is to approach the issue of philosophical inquiry from another, and perhaps more fundamentally ancient, manner. We begin, with this post, to develop a philosophy for the individual that itself is grounded on the negation of the isolated self as a basis for thought, and for elaboration. This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts. Your participation is encouraged. For ease of reading Flora Sapio is identified as (FS), and Larry Catá Backer as (LCB).

The friends continue their discussion. Flora Sapio starts to take up Larry's reference to Aristotle's natural slaves and Betita Horn Pepulim makes a point.

Contents: HERE. 

(FS ) "Aristotle's slave is an animated object. What owns it? What or who owns the self? Where does the will to manage and aggregate others come from? Betita Horn PepulimPaul Van FleetLarry Catá Backer"

(LCB)  Aaaah Flora, yes, in a sense Aristotle posited the possibility of "clay" without a soul (if I may reference Christian language for a moment).  It is then, as you suggest, an animated object.  And objects can be owned.  You then pose the succeeding question--if a natural slave can be owned then what is it within the individual that makes ownership conceivable (and it has been quite conceivable in many forms)? I will take up that question later bit wanted to focus on the preceding point--is it possible to admit to the natural slave--the individual incapable of liberation because there is nothing to liberate--no individual with respect to which  anything is possible, but perhaps ownership or husbrandry.

It is easy enough to  consider the possibility of the body incapable of animation.  It was certainly convenient to Aristotle's notion of hierarchy, to the more mass oriented collective management systems grounded in merit, and to authoritarian systems that seek to develop a taxonomy of power and privilege on the basis of "natural" conditions.  But that a trap.  That an individual chooses to live a life that appears to others as passive or deferential suggests nothing of her internal sense of herself.  It is, indeed, a curious construct that suggests an objective (subordination) in search of a rationale (the natural slave, the aristocracy of merit).  All of these, of course obliterate the individual within the collective norms of a mass designed to aggregate and order individuals.  But that is also a false substitution.  It suggests that the very project of individual liberation does not exist because it must defer to the collective. If that is the case, the possibility of a philosophy for the individual must also fail because, effectively the individual exists solely as a corollary of the mass.

(BHP) Olá Larry, aqui estou novamente com um texto longo, em português e inglês como você pediu! Abraços, Betita.

Caros Larry, Flora e Paul!

Sobre os perigos da teoria em relação a realidade:

Não vejo estes perigos, ao contrário eu acho que a teoria é um suporte necessário, entre outras funções, como registro dos vários processos de transformação que o homem tem vivido.

Com base no que percebo sobre a dicotomia teoria/realidade, concluo que a ideia de que a teoria deve servir para intervir na transformação da realidade , esteve e continua presente no entendimento de muitos cientistas sociais.

Este entendimento é sustentado pela aceitação de um dualismo da teoria e da prática, que tem estado presente ao longo de uma tradição de pensamento. Essa tradição imposta a teoria, deu para ela a responsabilidade de produzir critérios para atuar na realidade. Hannah Arendt, por exemplo, propôs que a relação entre teoria e prática fosse tratada fora dos padrões tradicionais. Por esta razão, Arendt distanciou-se da solução “ativista” adotada pela orientação dominante nas ciências sociais. Para ela o que importava é considerar o estatuto da teoria, independente das tarefas que são atribuídas a teoria.

Arendt defendia o conceito de "pluralismo" no âmbito político. Segundo ela o pluralismo poderia permitir que fosse gerado entre as pessoas o potencial de uma liberdade e igualdade política. Nesta visão é fundamental a perspectiva de incluir o “outro”. Arendt era crítica em relação a democracia representativa, ela considerava mais interessante um sistema de conselhos ou formas de democracia direta.

Como fontes para as suas investigações Arendt usou, além de documentos filosóficos, políticos e históricos, biografias e obras literárias.

Sobre as restrições que a realidade pode impor a teoria, eu li em um artigo que abordava a Teoria Tridimensional do Direito” que a norma é a indicação de um caminho, porém, para percorrer um caminho, deve-se seguir a partir de um determinado ponto e ser guiado por uma determinada diretriz: o ponto de partida da norma é o fato. Fonte: http://www.advogado.adv.br/artigos/2005/franciscodacunhaesilvaneto/teoriatridimensional.htm).

Ainda com relação a teoria/ realidade e somando a pergunta de Flora sobre de onde vem a vontade de gerenciar e agregar outros Peter M. Senge diz que nós aprendemos, desde muito cedo, a desmembrar os problemas e a fragmentar o mundo. Para ele aparentemente, isso ajuda que as tarefas e os assuntos complexos possam ser mais administráveis. Mas, em troca, nós pagamos um preço muito alto. Nós perdemos a noção intrínseca de conexão com o todo. Quando queremos dividir “o quadro geral”, tentamos montar os fragmentos em nossa mente, listar e organizar todas as peças. Mas, como diz o físico David Bohm, esta tarefa é inglória,é como tentar montar fragmentos de um espelho quebrado para enxergar um reflexo verdadeiro.

O que acontece é que depois de um tempo acabamos desistindo de ver o todo.

A prática do pensamento sistêmico começa com a compreensão de um conceito simples chamado feedback, que mostra como as ações podem se reforçar ou neutralizar (equilibrar) uma às outras. O pensamento sistêmico é uma disciplina para ver o todo. É um quadro referencial para ver inter-relacionamentos. Para Peter M. Senge, a chave para interpretar a realidade sistematicamente é enxergar círculos de influência, ao invés de linhas retas. Este é o primeiro passo para romper com a mentalidade reativa que vem do pensamento “linear”. Todo círculo conta uma história. Ao traçar os fluxos de influência, você pode ver os padrões que se repetem continuamente, melhorando ou piorando as situações.

Assim, Flora, penso que a vontade de agregar pessoas e de gerenciar situações vem da certeza de que somos seres sociais.



Dears Larry, Flora and Paul!

About the dangers of theory in relation to reality:

I don't see these dangers, unlike, i think the theory is a necessary support, among other functions, as a record of the various processes of transformation that man has been living.

Based on what i see about theory /reality dichotomy, i conclude that the idea that the theory should serve to intervene to transform reality, has been and still present in the understanding of many social scientists.

This understanding is supported by the acceptance of a dualism of theory and practice, that has been present over a tradition of thought.

This tradition imposed the theory, gave, for her, the responsibility to produce criteria to work in reality.

Hannah Arendt, for example, proposed that the relationship between theory and practice were treated outside the traditional standards.

For this reason, Arendt distanced up from the solution "activist" adopted by the dominant orientation in the social sciences. For her that mattered is to consider the status of theory, independent of the tasks that are assigned to theory.

Arendt defended the concept of "pluralism" in the political realm. According to her the pluralism could allow it were generated among the people the potential for freedom and equality policy.

In this view it is essential the perspective to include the "other".

Arendt was critical of representative democracy, she considered a system of advice or forms of direct democracy more interesting.

As sources for their research, Arendt used, in addition to philosophical documents, political and historical, biographies and literary works.

On the restrictions that reality can impose the theory, i read in an article that dealt with the theory three-dimensional of law, that the standard is the indication of a way, however, to follow a path, one must follow from a given point and be guided by a directive: the starting point of the standard is the fact (http://www.advogado.adv.br/artigos/2005/franciscodacunhaesilvaneto/teoriatridimensional.htm).

Also regarding the theory / reality and adding the question of Flora about from where comes the desire to manage and add other, Peter M. Senge says that we learn from an early age, to dismember the problems and fragment the world. For him apparently, it this helps the tasks and complex issues to be more manageable. But in return, we pay a very high price. We lost the intrinsic notion of connection to the whole. When we want to break "the big picture", we try to assemble the fragments in our mind, list and organize all parts.

But as physicist David Bohm says, this task is inglorious is like trying to assemble fragments of a broken mirror to see a true reflection. What happens is that after a while we ended up giving up to see the whole.

The practice of systemic thought starts with understanding a simple concept called feedback, which shows how actions can reinforce or counteract (balance) to each other.

Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing the whole. It is a frame of reference to see interrelationships. To Peter M. Senge the key to interpreting reality is systematically see circles of influence, rather than straight lines. This is the first step to break the reactive mentality who comes from the "linear" thinking. Every circle tells a story. In tracing the influence flows, you can see the patterns that are repeated continuously, improving or deteriorating situations.

For these reasons, Flora,i think the desire to aggregate people and manage situations comes from the certainty that we are social beings.