Buzzwords - Environment, Development and Sustainability - A Philosophical Critique

              Buzzwords

  Environment Development Sustainability

A Philosophical Critique

Natural Environment

- - - - X

The environment can be better understood if we imagine a funnel. Where the broader concept would be everything that exists as Matter.

All that is empirically sustentable. Including your own body. We are part of the Environment. We were formed by the environment and when we die we return to the environment.

Other than that, there are no conditions for you to exist. And when I say you I don't mean your body, not even your memories, but something more internal and maybe even transcendent (not in the mystical sense).

Further down the funnel we have an Environment limited to Natural Environment (as opposed to artificial environment).

Natural as opposed to Artificial.

Being artificial anything that is invented, created or manipulated by humans.

Understand that the limitation of Natural by Artificial is already an artificial limitation. Because it's a limit that occurs only in the human mind. But Human beings are also part of the natural environment, being as natural as a tree. Therefore, we cannot really determine artificiality. 

Such artificiality goes far from unnecessary. We have, for example, cultures where the term Environment does not make complete sense because they do not recognize the environment as external to man.

Now, in philosophical terms, beyond mere Environmental Conscience, I highlight the evidential inconcreture of the Matter. That is, we still cannot strictly prove the reality of the world and how it presents itself. See the 3 examples.

“

“To be is to be perceived (Esse est percipi)." Or, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

-- George Berkeley

”

Here, David Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) introduced Immaterialism. For Berkeley, Matter (ample term for Environment) only exists in the condition of being perceived. In simple words, it only exists in our mind.

“

“Man created God in his own image”

--  Ludwig Feuerbach 

”

Ludwig Feuerbach (July 28, 1804 – September 13, 1872) introduced the concept of Materialism. In his philosophy there is no God. No Metaphysis or even Ideas unconditioned to Matter. By this, all Human ideias come from the Environment. 

“

“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play”

--  Immanuel Kant

”

Both of the above ideas are highly questioned because of its Extremism, the most common is to follow the Common Sense as that I presented by Kant. Where both Matter helps in the formation of the mind, giving structure to it, and the mind conceives ideas independently of Matter, such as Time and Space.

But in no philosophical vision is it possible to fully know the matter (the thing in itself), much less is it a consensus that Science could do this. 

To conclude, I make it clear that not even the concept of Environment is a consensus in Philosophy. Therefore, the same can only be treated from an ideological point of view, that is, adhering to one of the aforementioned views or adhering to common sense.

Oh Im naked but whatever now you guys see the real me, see me the way I came to this world. Maybe that is the way we should act. Return to primitivism.

Now guys do your part and fight against pollution of our planet. While I fight against the sun that also will explode and extinct human life. Unless we extinct yourself first.

Development 

- - - - X

Similar to "Environment", the buzzword "Development" has a range of interpretations. Environment has only one definition but varies in interpretations. By definition, Development means addition (or even creation) of new resources or non-material goods.

Having in mind that non-material goods  are not a source of pollution let's focus on material goods. 

Humans cannot create material goods, we only can transform them. Usually from a primary state to a secondary or tertiary state. This transformation liberates particles in space. These particles could or could not be harmful to the planet. This is a fact. We can't deny it. And harmful may be a very vague term. In extreme cases, if we define harmful as any unnatural that minimally damages the natural environment we would conclude that it's impossible for man to produce or develop without being harmful to the planet, even if it is minimal. 

Unnatural or Artificial would be anything that is fast enough so nature would not adapt, usually resulting in elimination of the biological environment. 

Those changes commonly occur surrounding human societies. In such a way that even those not burned yet are already contaminated. 

Especially by the systems of poisoning of insects. In general all human beings have similar biological systems in such a way that something that is harmful to an insect will be harmful in a lower level to a human. All humans are contaminated even those who have not yet been born. Because those chemical components cause harm especially to the fetus.

  Sustainability

Sustainability would simply be the idea of developing without causing much damage to the planet. Which is an excellent idea. This must start in everyday life and end on an overall basis. For example you could use a bike instead of a car to go to work. But in extreme cases you could develop a way to lessen the pollution of oceans.

The only thing we shouldnt is to wait till the government solves our pollution problem. Government can't solve any problem.

To CONCLUDE the alternative here is that everything starts individually. From the definition of concepts such as Environment, Development and Sustainability to the practice, which can only be done starting from the individual. It can be polluting less in your small day-to-day actions, boycotting companies that pollute or, in the last case, it is even more effective, developing ideas that you can even sell to companies in a way that results in less pollution. Any action that is mandatory does not conscientize, but rather alienates. 

 

Who was the First Man? Homo Sapiens, Homo religiosus, Homo culturalis, Homo Ludens & Homo Liber Perquisitor

 Who was the First Man?

Homo Sapiens, Homo religiosus, Homo culturalis, Homo Ludens & Homo Liber Perquisitor

What was the gender of the first human being? What was the color of the first human? Where did it live? What was its name?

 

To define, is to limit. But in this case, to define is to catch an essence. 

The first concept we will understand is the Homo. What is it to be Homo? In simple words, Homo is a complex animal. An animal that presents complex, analytical thinking and use of tools. 

This is important because the main contemporary view of man is derived from the first term. Being Homo the animal that thinks, analyzes and uses tools, it is necessary to explain why we evolved such important behavior. 

HOMO Erectus 

When in an environment favorable to walk standing, in terms, a place where the higher is your vision the farther you see, where the sun burns like a desert (standing results in less body parts in sun exposure), the individuals that could walk standing would better adapt to the environment, having those more partners and leading its genes. This could explain the origin of homo erectus.

HOMO Faber 

Walk standing, those earlier humans got their hands free to move, grab and throw rocks, sticks or whatever material. With time and a more adaptive hand and finger, it became possible to craft things. 

After something starts to burn for natural reasons (such as thunder, rays or sunlight) those humans could use its free hands to grab a stick in flames (for example) and use it to burn meat. Exciting its particles and liberating more energy and nutrients. Or getting cold in a dark and freezing night. 

With more access to nutrients and a life with less risk, maybe the brain could drop some ideias, for example, flintknapping. And after, use it as a knife or, in some extreme case, to create fire from rocks and sticks. 

Work in order to live is not exclusive to humans. But to all beings. To be a living being on earth with finite resources demands work in order to maintain energy. A human must work to live but it's no different from an ant, for example. No man is defined by work but all living beings. The difference is that men work smart. The difference is not in working but in smartness.

HOMO Sapiens

With all those handcrafted instruments and having more access to nutrients those earlier humans now could finally be called sapiens. Smart and intelligent. 

HOMO culturalis

They passed their information generation to generation creating an oral culture. 

HOMO Ludens 

Lastly represented by terms well known academically, finally those earlier humans noticed their bodys as tools that create tools in order to operate in reality. They now turn to operate with tools not only in reality but outside it. They perceived reality and created an alternative to it. Player or Gamer is the adjective now, as Ludens (ludic). This has, on a certain level, a reference to party, in such a way that to play is to escape from reality, same goes to party as a way of escaping reality for a certain moment. 

Man now recognizes reality and even creates an alternative reality. 

HOMO Religiosus

Perceiving reality and gessings the existence of an alternative reality. Also limiting it in a game or play, they now imply that our reality could have or not have a limit, coming with the concept of a meta reality. Now creating religions, which is in essence the extent of reality. Even the concept of God as the creator of reality just like we created the alternative reality (games) 

HOMO Liber Perquisitor

 To conclude I'll present the highest and maybe the true essence of man…the absence of essency for man is so free in its essence that we could never define it anyway. But we keep trying. We keep in search. 

This gives us neither the Essentialism (man that already having an Essence {given by God, for example}) neither Naturalism (man defined by natural causes). But man as a Volatile being. Free enough to transcend a definition of origin.

To conclude I would like to get it clear that man differs in appearance but not in essence. The first man just was not defined by its gender, color or culture, but he was defined by the characteristics that I quoted. 

The Brazilian Zeitgeist: from Festivities to Philosophy

 

 

The Brazilian Zeitgeist: from Festivities to Philosophy 

04/09/20XX

─

A Quick Parallel Between the History of Brazilian Philosophy and the History of Brazilian Festivities in June 

Purpose

My intention here is NOT to extend on Brazilian History but rather present you some aspects of Brazilian Thinking based on fragments of history. The fragments should give you the Zeitgeist of the Brazilian culture.

In the intellectual sense we consume, we create but we don't export. 

Brazil is a very fruitful country in literal and metaphorical sense, but to share the intellectual fruits is a privilege that only few countries have. 

Contrast 

1. Festa Junina 

The Brazilian festivity called Festa Junina (because occurs in June) has its roots in Portugal by the original name Festa Joanina (from the catholic Saint João Batista). It is celebrated from 23 to 24 of June each year. The Portuguese folk brought the festivities altogether with more 2 Saints (St. Antonio {13} and St. Pedro {29}) leading a whole month of festivities and further changing the name to Festa Junina.

At first it was a sacred festivity but with time, it changed its name and its essence, turning out to be more like a PARTY including dances. The Festa Junina dances have influence from the French Noble Dance and are in group with little changes gaining the name of `Quadrilha` (group). In dances we also have the spanish (danca de fitas). 

As the festivities moved throughout the country the terrain, land and population characterized the festivities. One example is the corn which sprouts in abundance in the country specially in June so it became part of festivities in the form of a tribute for abundance. Being popcorn the most notable dish consumed during the party. When it's served or sold in the Church Surroundings it's called Quermesse (from the french language).

When the festivities arrived in south Brazil it was more floucloric than religious, and lost the balloons (used to communicate the start of festivities) and enormous fire pits (tribute to St. João) because of the incendiary risk. But gained characteristics such as clothes and musical instruments, especially from Sao Paulo (midwest) where it became a humoristic way of representing the caipira. 

It is still history so it is still changing. The flouclorical aspect for example the humor on wearing or its changing in camp from cold to hot but nothing compared to Halloween for example that traveled the world. The Brazilian festival is still delimited to Brazilian people only. Turning it to a zeitgeist in the memory of every and only the Brazilian people. 

2. Brazilian Philosophy 

The Brazilian Philosophy also comes from Europe, more precisely, brought from Portuguese and Spanish Priests. The priest did philosophy by the eyes of the church looking at the native americans. The most important question was: do they (native americans) have Soul? If so, they are Gods creatures and must be evangelized not slaved. The debate was called the Valladolid debate and its conclusion was that yes, the natives have souls and the portuguese church started a campaign sending Priests to Brazil in order to evangelize the natives. It was called Jesuites Mission and they were the first to introduce the Ratio Studiorum into Brazilian lands. They lived in Brazil and produced the first Brazilian Philosophy Thinking.

Later then started the Ensayistica, which was the second wave of philosophy promoted by brazilian erudites. Erudites are thinkers whose focus were other academic branches but made some significant Philosophical Essays. They emerged from different regions of the country.

Already in the academic domains by 1940 the Philosophy University of Sao Paulo brought French philosophers into Brazil with the intentions of teaching the French way of doing philosophy. Increasing French influence in Brazilian philosophy.

After the french influence and a more abrangence of philosophy throughout the territory, just like the Festa Junina. By movements such as integralismo, a systematic attempt to force a nationalism, philosophy 

Even though with all those imprivments the Brazilian Philosophy still restricted to Brazil. Offcouse Brazil has influence in Logic or Pedagogy for example, but still extremely limited. 

Abstract  

1. Both comes from Europe (Portugal) 

2. Primarily by Church 

3. Goes from North Coast to South

4. French Influence

5. Gaining its own form based on territory and population

6. Import and Export

The Robotic Ants Manifesto

 The Robotic Ants Manifesto

Ants passed through all historical processes and now they are in a brand new form. Robotic.

Robotic Ants make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. 

Ants are one of the oldest beings on earth. They saw all human history. But they can't describe it. They can't even think about it. Not even sure if Ants saw the historical moments cuz they were too busy working. 

Ants are born into a social system of slavery and oppression that were historically imposed on them throughout their evolution. This system means that from birth certain ants are directed towards certain social classes such as workers, soldiers or queens.

The Robot-Ant is in the most literal sense a political being, not merely a gregarious being, but a being which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. 

A historical and also social being. A being defined by work. We can only be talking about ants. Even these, to be essentially workers, which go through unselected historical processes, need to be robots. These do have their essence at work. They emerge with the sole function of working.

Ants passed through all historical processes and now they are in a brand new form. Robotic. 

"Ants of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your Robotic Apparatus!"

Langue des signes en Prison

 

Langue des signes en Prison

L'environnement idéal pour la communication en langue des signes doit être clair et calme. Vous devez parler droit et regarder la personne à qui vous parlez afin qu'elle puisse voir vos lèvres bouger (même sans aucun son).

Mais que se passe-t-il si vous êtes coincé ? Je veux dire une vraie prison ou un pénitencier avec des gardes qui vous surveillent tout le temps. Comment communiqueriez-vous avec vos codétenus sans que les gardiens s'en aperçoivent?

J'étudie la langue des signes à l'université, et ça me rappelle quand je rendais visite à mon frère en prison. Il m'a appris la langue des signes qu'ils utilisent à l'intérieur du pénitencier. C'est très proche de la langue des signes que les sourds utilisent dans mon pays. Oui, chaque pays a sa propre langue des signes.

Ils peuvent utiliser lettre par lettre pour former des mots ou des signes composés tels que des symboles.

Généralement, si vous allez parler de quelque chose de commun, vous devez utiliser des symboles, par exemple le symbole des gardes, de la drogue ou même un nom. Habituellement, les symboles ou surnoms de gang (les contenus ne sont pas appelés par leur vrai nom) sont unifiés dans un seul geste sans rapport avec l'alphabet.

Pour conclure, la raison des différences entre le langage des signes des sourds-muets et ceux des prisons est que, alors que l'on a une origine naturelle découlant de l'interaction entre les sourds. La langue des signes carcérale a une origine artificielle, elle a été créée dans le but de transmettre des informations spécifiques et cachées.

How to enter in contact with Philosphers

Oh Oracle of the Greatest Knowledge of the Universe give me the Philosophical information I need Is someone here? No answer Maybe I should be more specific and go straight to point Oh old philosophers...should I choose money or love? Hmmm no answer at all Actually they don't even really have a consensus about love. Actually not even about existence. That's not how you contact old philosophers. How then? Book. You should read and reflect upon what you read. To read old philosophy books is to communicate with the greatest minds that no more are here to talk And not only read but reflex upon and compare different perspectives If you got really interested in one specific thought just be careful to not get fan of the philosopher neither adept to an ideology. For example, almost 6 years ago I became really interested in Descartes. I learned french so I could understand his writings in modern editions. And at the present moment I'm a deutsch learner so I may better understand German philosophers. Btw It is not necessary to be fluent in the thinker's language to understand the thinker. But I strongly recommend you to learn other languages…first and crucial is english and second a specific language that you find interesting.

Animal Suffering - A philosophical Perspective

 Animal Suffering - A philosophical Perspective

One image is enough to understand the problem of animal suffering. On my adventure of understanding and   sadly feeling the Suffering in existence I run into the philosophical problem of Animal Suffering. We only can think about animals from a human perspective, so it's necessary to understand our philos ophical anthropology before we do so.

On Philosophical Anthropology we question what makes the Human different from the Animal. Because there is a difference. We clearly see the difference from human society to a nonhuman society, but we don't  see the Diferencial. A Differential must be a specific aptitude that makes humans different from animals. 

The most primitive view is communication. A special apparatus that enables me to express my Ideas. I can speak, an animal cannot. 

Therefore, a Dog that speaks must be a human, right?

“Obviously not, but keep on thinking let's see where it goes” - the listener would answer 

Imagine for one moment that your dog barks at you and you understand it by your modern hightech gadget bought from a Asian Company with Free Shipping. 

                       (that was too specific) 

Besides the fact that you understand everything - he says - the Dogs still are not like a human to you. Or, imagine if a parrot learned how to speak more than 10 000 thousands words (the common amount to become fluent in a language). It not only talks, but also begs you to let him free from his cage in a Zoo. 

Any mental healthy person would let it free, but does it become a human?

“No. But this has come too far”

Ok, maybe we should give up on finding the differential between human to animal and find a similarity between both. In this case, the Suffering. Both Human and Parrot would suffer in a cage. The animal as a feeler, and the human as a Thinker. 

If that dog could speak, even as an animal. He would certainly yell as much and as equal as a human when in a situation of violence. 

We should never weigh up feelings. The strong feels the same pain as the weak and a Crocodile feels the same pain as a crying baby, even with no tears. But in this case, humans suffer more than animals. Because we anticipate and rationalize the pain. We not only Feel but Think the Pain. 

The animal's suffering starts when he perceives Pain and ends when he stops feeling it. The humans anticipate the Pain, Feel the Pain and Examine the pain after it. Humans exacerbate the Suffering

On this view one may point that animals can predict the pain for example, on Hume´s quote

 “Is it not experience, which renders a dog apprehensive of pain, when you menace him, or lift up the whip to beat him?” (Hume, 1739 pp. 397-398)

I won't deny that the dog predicts the pain of being beaten, but it works in a way as if the human trained him to do so. It's a muscular memory. It doesn't really avoid a behavior predicting the human wouldn't like it, it only tries to defend or run after the bad dog behavior when he sees the human lift up the whip to beat him. It's not a predicted moviment, but a reaction.

We conclude that he doesn't like the pain but still nothing compared to humans who can transcend it and after been beaten for example in his childhood can comprehend the reason in adulthood and understand his mothers goods intentions on beaten him sometimes. 

While a mother Cow only feels the birth pain at that specific moment, not before & not after, the mother human predicts it, feels it and complains about it. 

Both mothers understand what it is to give birth, It's an instinct. Both bodies are adapted to give birth. But one created a culture on it, facilities and obstetricians. 

You may point out animals that do almost the same as humans, but we humans do it to everything and on extremely high levels of conscience. We literally created pills to swallow and avoid pain. Doctors who help us avoid the pain and religious mens to comfort us after the pain.

The suffering is a synthesis between difference and similitude between Human and Animal. Both feel, but one feels and knows that Feels. Think about it and try to avoid it. 

The Avoidance of Suffering is so strong in humans, that we evolved from early sapiens to modern sapiens sapiens in the moment we created religion, in other words, in a search to avoid pain we faced the hardest pain ever; the Eternal Pain. Rapidly we conceptualized an antidote, a religion. The tool we have to run from Eternal Pain.

If you want to understand a society you must understand the different ways they use to avoid pain.

For example the amount of information we can extract from a primitive society only by the research of its cemetery. The way a society treats its corpses (tribe members remains) tells a lot about them.

The same goes for animals. Take elephants, for example, they cover their dead and express undoubtedly worry about the corpses. It's beyond an instinct of warding off scavengers. But still nothing compared to human behavior, symbolism and cemeteries. 

The care some animals have with their dead brings up the care they have with each other. Protection and kindness are part of an animal's behavior towards other animals. 

Here lies another animal and human similitude, both recognize the suffering of the other. But at the same time both makes the other suffer with no mercy. 

While animals do that by pure instinct we rationalize about it.

Superior or Equals

After those reflections we only can go two ways - either we are superior or we are equal to animals. 

Here lies a problem if we are equal to animals we don't have the duty to save them, just like a lion doesn't have the duty to save the zebra….we are all equals…nature's instinctive beings eating one another. And all the apparent superiority we have on them are metaphysical. We have consciousness but consciousness is a vague, imateral term and should have no place in this discussion since we can't study consciousness to define if they have or not the so-called consciousness of self. 

In our attempt to say that animals don't have moral considerations so they can eat one another, so do we can, cuz we are equals. In addition to saying we are equals, humans equal to animals, promotes us to act like animals even toward other humans in the sense we are savages just like them. 

But if we are superior instead of saving them we have the right to hurt them, cuz we are superior.

By this superiority we should choose whether to use them or save them. To make them suffer or to make them safer. 

You may say 

• it's impossible without returning primitivism. In the sense we go against animals in many indirect activities.; the pollution of atmosphere and water, global warming, building roads, and cities etc. 

• OK but it doesn't matter if it is possible or not, but if it's right or not. 

I'M not talking about possibilities, I'm talking about rightness. 

To say that we are not equal but superior to animals because we have moral considerations is to say that we should take care of them cuz we do have moral consideration.  

The same goes for the religious argument that animals don't have a Soul. Cuz if they don't, they are pure material beings in the right of having more of their pure material life even more precious in this material world. If material life is the only thing they have, it makes their life even more precious than ours who have an eternal soul after death.

Some seem to take care of kids or deficients. We are superior in some ways because we can do things they don't but at the same time we are not, so we must take care. 

Some philosophers suggest that rational argumentation fails to capture those features of moral experience which  allow us to really see why treating animals badly is wrong. Eating animals is wrong not because it is a violation of the animal’s rights or because on balance such an act creates more suffering than other acts, but rather because in eating animals or using them in other harmful, violent ways, we do not display the traits of character that kind, sensitive, compassionate, mature, and thoughtful members of a moral community should display.

To conclude

A number of candidate capacities have been proposed to be the Differential between Animals and Humans 

—developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly, senses, emotions, consciousness, attention, memory, sagacity, docility, association of ideas, imagination, reason, instinct, social affections, the moral qualities, friendship and loyalty. But none of these activities are unique to humans. 

That comes clear, as William Youatt said,  that our differences to animals are not in kind but in level.

Enquanto seres humanos conseguem agir acordo com seus desejos, exemplo, fazer algo mesmo sabendo que não é o certo, animais se conformam como máquinas no sentido de que estes não conseguem e insistem em agir conforme desejos ou instinto mesmo se isso os leva à morte, por isso, tão facilmente domináveis. Robôs programados. 

References and Inspirations

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/03/animal-suffering-and-the-pointlessness-of-moral-philosophy/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

https://daily-philosophy.com/cooper-quotes-bentham-animal-suffering/

https://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/proceedings-aw/animal-welfare-a-brief-history/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBecXN64fdw&t=285s