Paradigmas, valores e educação

O texto levanta os perfis epistemológico e socianalítico da questão paradigmática. Mauss evidenciara o moule affectif das noções científicas de força e causa. Posteriormente Baudouin falaria na indução arquetípica das noções e a antropologia do imaginário de Durand concluiria pela indução arquetipal do conceito pela imagem. Chegava-se, assim, ao desvendamento do substrato inconsciente das ideações, de um substrato regido pela catexis vetorializada, traduzindo-se nos valores como cerne das ideações. É o famoso a priori emotivo. Portanto, no texto, questionam-se dois mitos, esteios da ciência clássica: o mito da objetividade científica e o da neutralidade axiológica. Destaca, assim, a falácia da existência de uma ruptura epistemológica entre ciência e ideologia. A partir daí, as ideações tornam-se ideologias, sobretudo nas ciências do homem e nas ciências da educação que, ademais, tornam-se suporte de uma disfarçada luta ideológica, na qual, num colonialismo cognitivo, as estratégias de conhecimento dissimulam as de preconceito. Entretanto, assumir a realidade desse suporte fantasmanalítico e ideológico propicia uma tarefa educativa salutar: os paradigmas tornam-se fantasias e, nessa relativização crítica, podem ser usados como um campo de objetos transicionais coletivos num ludismo cultural e educativo. No policulturalismo da sociedade contemporânea, o politeísmo de valores de Weber transforma-se num politeísmo epistemológico, regido pelo relativismo ontológico de Feyerabend e por uma ética do pragmatismo. Articulando cultura, organização e educação, a antropologia das organizações educativas e a culturanálise de grupos de Paula Carvalho traduzem as heurísticas dessa dialética transicional.

Apropriação/vivência de valores em questão: repercussões na prática pedagógica

Pós-graduação em Educação - FFC

Desencantamento do mundo e ética na ação pedagógica: reflexões a partir de Max Weber

This article has a theoretical character and presents some of Weber's ideas, with emphasis on those that can supply elements to reflect on the current state of education, more particularly based on his understanding of modernity. Disenchantment of the world is the key concept in his sociology, and is taken as the basis for a reflection about the meaning that science and the teacher can have today. A classic author, Weber's interpretation of the modern world brings to our consideration a variety of themes that influence markedly the thinking and practice of contemporary culture by its concern with understanding human actions and values. By studying the Western process of rationalization, he initiates debates in science, in ethics and, correspondingly, in education, allowing us to expand our comprehension of the meaning, significance, and role of our actions towards knowledge and teaching. The main object of education is to offer students contents that stimulate the freedom of thought. For that, the teacher needs to adopt a non-partisan ethics in the classroom, presenting contents unbiased by her/his political opinions and, if failing to do so, having the honesty to explain what she/he is doing. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the teacher should keep a neutral position, so that in and out of the classroom the students may reflect and question what they see, experiment and decide upon. Only then the conduct of the teacher will be consistent with the process of rationalization of our culture.

Tolerance and Critical Thinking

Post-soviet countries are in the process of transformation from a totalitarian order to a democratic one, a transformation which is impossible without a profound shift in people's way of thinking. The group set themselves the task of determining the essence of this shift. Using a multidisciplinary approach, they looked at concrete ways of overcoming the totalitarian mentality and forming that necessary for an open democratic society. They studied the contemporary conceptions of tolerance and critical thinking and looked for new foundations of criticism, especially in hermeneutics. They then sought to substantiate the complementary relation between tolerance and criticism in the democratic way of thinking and to prepare a a syllabus for teaching on the subject in Ukrainian higher education. In a philosophical exploration of tolerance they began with relgious tolerance as its first and most important form. Political and social interests often lay at the foundations of religious intolerance and this implicitly comprised the transition to religious tolerance when conditions changed. Early polytheism was more or less indifferent to dogmatic deviations but monotheism is intolerant of heresies. The damage wrought by the religious wars of the Reformations transformed tolerance into a value. They did not create religious tolerance but forced its recognition as a positive phenomenon. With the weakening of religious institutions in the modern era, the purely political nature of many conflicts became evident and this stimulated the extrapolation of tolerance into secular life. Each historical era has certain acts and operations which may be interpreted as tolerant and these can be classified as to whether or not they are based on the conscious following of the principle of tolerance. This criterion requires the separation of the phenomenon of tolerance from its concept and from tolerance as a value. Only the conjunction of a concept of tolerance with a recognition of its value can transform it into a principle dictating a norm of conscious behaviour. The analysis of the contemporary conception of tolerance focused on the diversity of the concept and concluded that the notions used cannot be combined in the framework of a single more or less simple classification, as the distinctions between them are stimulated by the complexity of the realty considered and the variety of its manifestations. Notions considered in relation to tolerance included pluralism, respect and particular-universal. The rationale of tolerance was also investigated and the group felt that any substantiation of the principle of tolerance must take into account human beings' desire for knowledge. Before respecting or being tolerant of another person different from myself, I should first know where the difference lies, so knowledge is a necessary condition of tolerance.The traditional division of truth into scientific (objective and unique) and religious, moral, political (subjective and so multiple) intensifies the problem of the relationship between truth and tolerance. Science was long seen as a field of "natural" intolerance whereas the validity of tolerance was accepted in other intellectual fields. As tolerance eemrges when there is difference and opposition, it is essentially linked with rivaly and there is a a growing recognition today that unlimited rivalry is neither able to direct the process of development nor to act as creative matter. Social and economic reality has led to rivalry being regulated by the state and a natural requirement of this is to associate tolerance with a special "purified" form of rivalry, an acceptance of the actiivity of different subjects and a specification of the norms of their competition. Tolerance and rivalry should therefore be subordinate to a degree of discipline and the group point out that discipline, including self-discipline, is a regulator of the balance between them. Two problematic aspects of tolerance were identified: why something traditionally supposed to have no positive content has become a human activity today, and whether tolerance has full-scale cultural significance. The resolution of these questions requires a revision of the phenomenon and conception of tolerance to clarify its immanent positive content. This involved an investigation of the contemporary concept of tolerance and of the epistemological foundations of a negative solution of tolerance in Greek thought. An original soution to the problem of the extrapolation of tolerance to scientific knowledge was proposed based on the Duhem-Quine theses and conceptiion of background knowledge. In this way tolerance as a principle of mutual relations between different scientific positions gains an essential epistemological rationale and so an important argument for its own universal status. The group then went on to consider the ontological foundations for a positive solution of this problem, beginning with the work of Poincare and Reichenbach. The next aspect considered was the conceptual foundations of critical thinking, looking at the ideas of Karl Popper and St. Augustine and at the problem of the demarcation line between reasonable criticism and apologetic reasoning. Dogmatic and critical thinking in a political context were also considered, before an investigation of critical thinking's foundations. As logic is essential to critical thinking, the state of this discipline in Ukrainian and Russian higher education was assessed, together with the limits of formal-logical grounds for criticism, the role of informal logical as a basis for critical thinking today, dialectical logic as a foundation for critical thinking and the universality of the contemporary demand for criticism. The search for new foundations of critical thinking covered deconstructivism and critical hermeneutics, including the problem of the author. The relationship between tolerance and criticism was traced from the ancient world, both eastern and Greek, through the transitional community of the Renaissance to the industrial community (Locke and Mill) and the evolution of this relationship today when these are viewed not as moral virtues but as ordinary norms. Tolerance and criticism were discussed as complementary manifestations of human freedom. If the completeness of freedom were accepted it would be impossible to avoid recognition of the natural and legal nature of these manifestations and the group argue that critical tolerance is able to avoid dismissing such negative phenomena as the degradation of taste and manner, pornography, etc. On the basis of their work, the group drew up the syllabus of a course in "Logic with Elements of Critical Thinking, and of a special course on the "Problem of Tolerance".

El concepto de persona en el Scriptum super Sententiis Petri Lombardi de Santo Tomás

El Aquinate, en su Comentario a los cuatro libros de las Sentencias de Pedro Lombardo, se pregunta si es aplicable en el campo teológico la definición de persona sostenida por Boecio para iluminarla naturaleza de los sujetos trinitarios sin caer por ello en un politeísmo, y para afirmar además la encarnación del Verbo sin negar la doble naturaleza de Cristo. Teniendo en cuenta que dicha cuestión fue objeto de agudas controversias tanto antes como después del Concilio de Nicea, y que, luego de Boecio, también lo fue para los más destacados maestros medievales; es conveniente por tanto efectuar un breve seguimiento histórico del problema, deteniéndose así en los antecedentes más próximos a Santo Tomás, para luego, a partir del Scriptum super Sententiis Petri Lombardo, indagar sobre las razones que movieron al Aquinate a insistir sobre la aplicación del concepto de persona en el ámbito teológico.

Dioses, Dios

"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following de´Çü nition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god.

Dioses, Dios

"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following de´Çü nition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god.

Dioses, Dios

"We are not jealous of gods, we do not serve them, we do not fear them, but at the risk of our lives, we attest for their multiple existence, and are stirred to be of their chancy keeping when they are no more remembered of". What could mean such a sentence written by René Char? Is it still possible to think and to experiment, here and now, after centuries of monotheism, something like a plurality of gods? What is it to be a pagan? Rereading Homer, and then Plato, Nietzsche and Lyotard, we could risk the following de´Çü nition: pagan is someone able to suppose, between performance and cosmos, that the one coming up to him is, may be, some god.

Du polythéisme romain : considéré dans ses rapports avec la philosophie grecque et la religion chrétienne; / ouvrage posthume de Benjamin Constant; précédé d'une introduction de J. Matter.

Mode of access: Internet.

De la religion : considérée dans sa source, ses formes et ses développements /

Imprint varies.

Du polythéisme romain,

Mode of access: Internet.

Au deçà de la Cité de Dieu

La Cité de Dieu a été rédigée dans une perspective polémique vis-à-vis les païens. La prise de Rome, en 410, a entraîné en Afrique du Nord la venue d’une élite cultivée, revivaliste et admirative du vieux polythéisme. Contre cette mouvance nostalgique, tributaire des anciens majoritairement sur le plan intellectuel et livresque, Augustin s’en prend à la bibliothèque des nouveaux arrivants. La Cité de Dieu peut, le cas échéant, être lue par la négative, c’est-à-dire par le biais de la critique qu’élabore Augustin de trois auteurs choisis, Varron, Cicéron et Salluste, qui résument et représentent conjointement l’essence de la culture classique. Tant chez les païens que chez l’évêque d’Hippone – leur détracteur –, Varron incarne la fine pointe de la théologie romano-hellénistique, Salluste est celui qui a mené à sa perfection la discipline de l’histoire, Cicéron a écrit le parachèvement des oeuvres sur la République, et chacun préconise sa structure idéologique propre, les trois domaines formant pourtant un ensemble systémique. Tout en louant ses illustres prédécesseurs, Augustin leur porte une critique générale et c’est à cette critique que seront consacrées nos analyses.