Emerson says that: "Nature transforms (focuses) into balls, And its proud ephemera, Rapid on the surface and out, Scan the profile of the sphere; I knew what that meant. A new genesis was here. " Long before, Giordano Bruno, also in his time, in his book Do Infinity: The Universe and the Worlds, appeared in Venice in 1583, celebrates the emancipation of the human spirit from the misery of an untraced nature and stepmother and a petty God, limited to a single small world. Bruno understood that there are no borders or boundaries, barriers or walls, that deceived us the infinite wealth of things. Eternally fertile is the land and its ocean. He describes his own role as that of Columbus from the outer spaces, which he gave the Terrans the knowledge that it is possible to break through the covers of illusion. Just as Columbus returned from his voyage on the other side of the Atlantic with the news that there was another shore, Bruno wanted a return of his journey to infinity with the new one of no more than a vault or a supreme rim. Over and over, the world has lost its limits and resistance in all directions. This is the fundamental theoretical-spatial news of the modern brúnic age and does not want to sound less evangelical than the Colombian one. Bruno celebrates as an euphorizing boundary release his mental crossing of the universe and his passage through the "upper vault of the firmament" into infinite space and exposes the analogy between thought and navigation. Nietzsche had already said in The Gaia Science what is called "the death of God" or the disinflation of metaphysics (even of its end).
Nietzsche says (2001, pp. 147-148):
The Crazy Man. “They did not hear of this crazy man who lit a lantern in the morning and ran to the market, and he began to shout ceaselessly,” I’m looking for God! I seek God! "? "And as there were many of those who did not believe in God, he aroused a great laugh. So he’s lost? One of them asked. Did he lose himself as a child? Another said. Are you hiding? Is he afraid of us? Did you board a ship? You emigrated? They shouted and laughed at each other. The madman threw himself between them and pierced them with his gaze. “Where did God go?” He shouted, "I’ll tell you! We killed him - you and me. We are all his killers! But how did we do it? How did we manage to drink the sea entirely? Who gave us the sponge to erase the horizon? What have we done to unleash the land of your sun? Where does she move now? Where do we move to? Away from all the suns? Do not we continually fall? Back, to the sides, to the front, in all directions? Are there still “above” and “below”? Do not we wander like that through an infinite nothingness? Do not we feel the breath of the vacuum? Has not he become colder? Does not darkness everlast? Do not we have to light lanterns in the morning? Have not we heard the noise of the gravediggers bury God? Do not we smell divine putrefaction? - the gods rot too! God is dead! God is still dead! And we killed them! How can we console ourselves, murderers among the murderers? The strongest and most sacred the world had ever possessed bleed whole under our daggers - who will cleanse us this blood? With what water could we wash? What atoning rites, what sacred games will we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this act too great for us? Should not we ourselves become gods, to at least seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater act - and whoever comes after us will belong, because of that act, to a story higher than the whole story until then! "At that moment he silenced the mad man, and again looked at his listeners: they too were silent looking amazed at him. “I come too soon,” he said then, "is not yet my time. This enormous event is on the way, it still walks: it has not yet reached the ears of men. Corisco (bolt of lightning) and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, the acts, even after they are done, need time to be seen and heard. This act is still more distant to them than the furthest constellation - and yet they have committed! - It is also told the same day the mad man broke into several churches, and in each one intoned his Requiem aeternaum deo. Taken out and interrogated, he merely replied, “What are these churches, if not the mausoleums and tombs of God?”
To dwell is a cultivation of feelings in a fenced space. After Copernicus, the universe had to be rebuilt with good reasons and that it could no longer offer the inhabitants of the land the old security of the covers. The modern age and modernity can be unequivocally characterized by a radical structuring of immunity relations. Let’s wander like someone in an infinite space. All metaphysical philosophy is then, unauthorized. So now we can feel the cold. The cold comes because there is no more sun. The horizons were erased and lost their contours. There is the devaluation of all values as a maximum heat moves away. A cosmic frost succumbs to us. A cold world is a world in which then, because it presents itself with mist, allows some to have “to light lanterns in the morning”. The act of madness becomes a common act. The madman can appear in any market. Therefore, the greatest mausoleums and tombs of God are the churches. The dead God is known by some and not by others. Positivism announced the replacement of religion by science, falling to the ground any and all absolute, by its own internal dynamics. Science or knowledge has detached itself from a unitary view, creating mechanisms, scientific methods, data, experiments and observations of its own phenomena, independent of the beliefs and desires of scientists. From Nietzsche’s point of view, God’s death appears as a man-made “climatic catastrophe” (nihilism, “dark matter” penetrates all places). If structures in ring shapes that covered the earth were cut into pieces, a penumbra during the day makes it necessary to use light to see by day. The open animal plucked its roof and its house inside. Entering into modernity is putting at risk the immune systems it has created for many years. To live in the modern world is to pay a price for the absence of protective layers. The man in the wrapper deals with his psychosis of the time, responding to outside cooling with heating techniques and climatic policies or with climatic techniques and heating policies. Modernity has shown us an “ontology of levitation”. The being of man now acquires a characteristic of taking the feet of the earth, of the soil. Much of this is due to the movements of great navigations and the phenomena of globalization. Entering into modernity, we have the end of a post-metaphysical era, which has spread from the time of all the chairs. The end of the metaphysical absolute and the metaphysical disinflation. He is in a metaphysical homelessness of man. Lukács uses this concept to explain that the typical expression of modernity is the novel. That’s because the novel is the garbage basket for the roles of the homeless soul. It is the most important form of aesthetic communication for disoriented people. From these disoriented worlds, each one builds, in small proportions, his own immune system. The thesis of identity, indeed, would have to be valid in order to allow us to suppose with vision of success that the apartment of the earth at the center of the cosmos would metaphysically mean the evacuation of God from the center of being. In the text “On the Horizon of Infinity”, Nietzsche says: "We leave the mainland and we embark! We burned the bridge - still more, we cut every tie with the land that was left behind! Now be careful, little boat! Next to you is the ocean, it is true that it does not always roar, and sometimes stretches like silk and gold and daydream of kindness. But there will come times when you will realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing more terrible than infinity. Oh, poor bird that felt free and now it hits the walls of that cage! Woe to you, if you are stricken with longing for the earth, as if there had been more freedom there - and there is no more “land”! [1 - NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Gaia Science. Translation: Paulo César de Souza. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2001, § 124, p. 147.]
What we have left are the phenomena that present themselves to us. The human being was thrown into the open, and now, the balls-balls we observe are molecular-level. Emerson seems to have a mentality that comes close to a theology mixed with Spinoza’s belief in a God based on the following principle: God and Nature are the same thing, the famous: God sive Natura (God or Nature). But Emerson also seems to demonstrate an idea of progress where the past helps us form the new circle forward. Where there is no “immobility” in nature (or in the cosmos), everything is kinetic and volatile. We could reverse Heidegger by saying that “being-in-the-world” comes to “furniture of the world,” however, when we speak of ontology, we must understand that the world is not furniture populated by pieces that have already been constituted. The world is populated by what is constantly moving, traveling, transiting between the elements, but not as something immutable, but as something that transits along with the transition, something that moves in itself, transforming itself as it changes in space and in time. Not “being-in-the-world”, but rather, “being-entering-the-world”. An analysis of the place as “coming to the world”, that is, an old notion coming from the tradition of Socrates and a cosmology, that of metoikesis. A similar notion is used by Hegel when dealing with his phenomenology of the spirit. We could say that “nothing is lost, everything is transformed”. The “new” and the new continents are built from the ruins of an ancient planet. The new races were fed by the decomposition of the preceding one. The future feeds on the fertilizer of the dead. New gear destroys old. New techniques leave others out of date. Emerson goes so far as to say that: "… capital investment in aqueducts, rendered useless by hydraulics; fortifications by gunpowder; roads and canals, by railroads; candles, steam; by electricity. The hand he built can knock him down much faster. Better than the hand, and more agile, was the invisible thought that passed through it; and thus always, behind the gross effect, is a good cause, which, being closely watched, is itself the effect of a more subtle cause. " I believe that Emerson considers a “nature conspiracy” in our favor. He speaks with these words: "Our life is an apprenticeship to the truth, that around every other circle can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn at noon, and under every deep depth it opens”. A phrase that sounds to Platonism, but at the same time, gives us the idea of modern science as truth. The universe is fluid and volatile. Staying is just a word of degrees. Our globe seen by God is a transparent law, not a mass of facts. The law dissolves the fact and keeps it fluid. Our culture is the predominance of an idea that attracts this train of cities and institutions. Let’s dig deeper into another idea: they will disappear. "Purified by light and elemental wind, Immersed in the sea of beautiful shapes. That the field offers, we can cast a glance back to the biography.
Sloterdijk (2016, p.21):
The thought of modernity, which for so long came under the naive name of “Lights” and the even more naive programmatic term “progress,” stands out for an essential mobility. Whenever it follows its typical advance, it performs a movement by which the intellect breaks out of the cave of human illusions toward the non-human exterior. It is no wonder that the turn of cosmology, identified with the name of Copernicus, lies at the beginning of the recent history of knowledge and delusion. It caused the inhabitants of the First World to lose their cosmological myth, and then set in motion an era of progressive decentering. Since then, all the illusions about its privileged position in the lap of the Cosmos have ceased for the inhabitants of Earth, however much such ideas may remain attached to us as innate illusions. With Copernicus’s heliocentric thesis, there began a series of exploratory ruptures directed toward an exterior devoid of human beings, towards the inhumanly distant galaxies and the more ghostly components of matter. The new icy breath from outside was soon perceived, and even some of the pioneers of the revolutionary changes of knowledge of the position of the Earth in relation to the universe did not fail to show their discomfort regarding the intended infinity; thus Kepler himself protested against the doctrine of the infinite universe of Giordano Bruno, saying that “precisely in this reflection there is a non-knowing that is terrifying and hidden”; in fact, we wander lost in this immensity to which limits and central point are denied, and with this, any fixed position.
Most likely Emerson talks about some kind of theology or even cosmology, it is possible that he is referring to some philosophies like Nicholas of Cusa, Spinoza, Leibniz or Giordano Bruno. The sphere has a morphological-geometric capacity to gather and to be able to inhabit in person coexistences in its interior. Nicholas of Cusa, in postulating the symmetry of the maximal being-implied, nothing more than, God, as concentration on the atomic point and maximal being-explicit, takes God as implantation in the all-sphere. With these assumptions, human thought would always be a cognitive accompaniment to divine expansion in the explicit. It is to say in the realized and created, to the extent that such a consummation can be achieved in finitude. A similar optimism can be seen in Spinoza’s works with his ethics which represents the singular exhortation to the development of natural potential. We still do not know all that the dark body is capable of. Already in Leibniz, cognitive optimism adopts more attenuated forms because the author of the monadology had a concept of the unfathomability of the implications that reach to infinity. Hegel had also constructed a circle of circles as a cosmology which holds in principle that the latter is only the first consummated and brought to itself epicentrically.
Only those who leave this system can learn to consider and understand this outside environment. Only then can one perceive a rupture between the known and the usual, on the one hand and alternative forms of new and artificial life on the other. Nietzsche’s prognosis that we, the navigators of the future, not only break the bridges, but also the land that lies behind us literally materializes in the airwaves of space (emptynauts) or “free spirits” as he calls himself. During this period, the antigravity policy had given rise, in the form of republicanism, air navigation, balloons, air strikes, aesthetics and therapy, industries, space technologies, telecommunications and long-distance traffic were latent to create their own means and machines. The conquest of space in an odyssey. After all, space is also space. The ocean we are sailing now is another, it is a black ocean. So, whoever does not want to speak of this upward impulse must shut up before Modernity. Nietzsche himself had declared to his friends “free thinkers” or “free thinkers” of life as aeronauts of the spirit. The so-called metoikesis is the path of the philosopher to the “nowhere” for this philosopher being and this “no place” is even a no place, so that the transfer has no rest. Hannah Arendt recalls that the only time Heidegger quotes Socrates is to make a metaphor of thought as gale. She asserts that Heidegger reminds Socrates that he would never have done anything else, even at the hour of death, but “put himself in the middle of that gale,” that is, the wind of thought, and then stay there. Thus, according to Heidegger quoted by Arendt, Socrates “is the purest thinker of the West”. This is why he wrote nothing. For whoever goes out of his mind and begins to write has to look like the people who take refuge in a shelter with a very strong wind for them. All post-Socrates thinkers, despite their greatness, are like these refugees. Thought became literature. [2 - ARENDT, Hannah. The Life of the Spirit. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 2010, p. 196.] It is to this characteristic of wind, often referred to by the partners of Socrates to what he did in thinking and talking, that Arendt calls attention. It is to take the wind caused by the formulation of concepts. It is a question of formulating the general and universal that brings together individuals. Take thought as classic. If with conservatism we speak of expressions such as “discharge” and “liberation,” they are the most apt to contextualize the subjective and psychopolitical reflexes of the great levitation. With legalized society, we will have a constant optimization of routines that are driven by money, politico-legal frameworks and in a “world state” (Hegel) where the change of the contexts of seriousness and proportions of existential weight become present. A certain kind of levitated ontological condition has not yet been found very well by “society.” The discharge reaches all things, be it language, material conditions or state of affairs. Their states of mind now that they have been released from uncertainty in their exit from the universe of poverty are also important because they will be instrumental in opening a path to the relief of poverty. Driving to the rule of law gives an effervescence of ways of existence lighter, free, frivolous and ephemeral. The meaning of the ambition of moderns to settle in airspace.
A balloon takes us to the top, in it we can overcome gravity. A “swarm of balloons” takes us into an era or a movement of antigravity. The “free spirits” are those who are hovering in the air and cannot have weight or direction already determined are in the flow of the current or the forces of the winds, the “airmen of spirit.” It says only “aeronauts”, the light ones that fly (in the sense of an atmosphere). It was well known that in Hegel’s metaphysics, the spirit, as a storehouse of all storehouses, was described with an image of a circle of circles. A system of immunity that has surpassed all evidence, and which has come to collect and gather absolutely everything that at any moment can or has been able to be filed, to be divided again, as provision of the objective spirit (law, religion, science, culture, art, technique, etc.). Self-receptive working receptacles, with the need for animation and with common motivations and solidary spatial representations, with large numbers of human beings inside, inside a sphere of meaning. This relationship would become, after millennia, something so obvious that the entry of the twentieth century, under the historical world units, the peoples, will be understood, without further analysis, as a self-receptive group of thick walls. Only with the entry into the post-national horizon is it that in the nations of the First World a new universal historical society emerged: thin-walled society. What is now called “Artificial Intelligence” is a hybrid term for the familiar phenomena that in artifacts (tools, works and institutions), the intentions of producers survive almost independently of their products. This is precisely what was expressed in Hegel’s concept of “objective spirit.” What is objective is the intelligence invested in tools, works and institutions through their producers, who later separated themselves from them to be absorbed and applied by other intelligences (subjective spirit, students, users). This allows us to think about the transition that transits. In the man who already comes into the world with some kind of “fossilization” or “sedimentation” structure a receptacle (imagine for example water inside a bottle), and the possibility of transmitting them to future generations. This in operation tells us that, for example, the West has a certain “mold” or that frames man in Greek-Roman traditions, Christianity and Human Rights. These are the basis of the “formation” of individuals already shaped by laws, institutions, church, etc.).
Hegel when he speaks of the objective spirit as a preordination to the individual as something that remains intact and unsullied in front of his agency and how the gods, myths, and rituals of a tribe hold or become stable. A transmission from one generation to another. If men die, the forms and laws remain. Seeing things in this way, things, customs or institutions are a more lasting, real, objective and necessary dimension than the human beings who must coexist according to them. The concept of tradition emerges as a process of collective conservation of models in time, but a conservation of form. All content is form. Therefore, atheism is an outrage of form. In more traditional cultures, learning acquires a sense of accommodation with the existing form. As for modern cultures, there is an openness to progressive explanations and learning means taking part in permanent model review processes. In a recent interview with Michel Temer, the former president of Brazil talking about the crisis said: "People pass. I will pass, but institutions remain. " This faith in punctuality or a certain mode of operation is a reflection of the metaphysical conviction that behind every fact there is a prescription and behind each prescription, the seal of a higher truth. The man when he calls the lady for the dance extends the right arm, the train has time of arrival and departure, some write from left to right others from right to left, in some countries it goes from left to right in others from the right to the left or the men to give the hand to the women put them on their right side. The Stoics would summarize that belief in the power of rules in the thesis that being and being in order mean the same. Wittgenstein will say that “culture is a rule of order or presupposes a rule of order.” What we call “culture” are spaces integrated by geometric configurations and common models, and the concept of tradition emerges as a process of collective conservation of models in time, but a conservation of form. All content is form. Just see a bottle and its liquid inside. For Hegel, the romantic attack is that the slight has consolidated itself. He already believed that it should be put in place, processes of reviewing the weights and measures of the former serious consideration. The modern way of experiencing boredom emancipates itself as a phenomenon of its own. The inner time gets rid of in such a way that a loose and liberated competition of purpose appears, in positive sense without work that advanced of the whim and later to return to him. The floating spirit that judges only for itself and with the element of the world sees only an “insubstantiality” that takes its hands. It is when lack of seriousness, pain, the other, dialectics, work, patience and negativity. An active restlessness that is the self that as its counterpoint, circular movement and labor and laborious production know where it goes. One drifting aimlessly towards Hegel would be one cannot follow his own line. The message we see in Julius Verne with his Around the World in 80 Days is that in a technically saturated civilization, there is no longer any adventure. The unexpected or the surprise is replaced by only, but only, delays. In Jules Verne’s case, there is a change in traffic. The universal traveler renounces his documentary profession and becomes a pure passenger. He is a typical customer of a transportation service who pays to make your trip a mere matter of time and not an experience. A hero of punctuality. His only interest in the landscapes and images that travel through him is to cross them. The classic tourist prefers to travel with the windows closed. We have an “airy traveler” who transits through the spaces without fixing in any corner. There is no relationship let’s say “homeland.”
The experimentation of some weight began to be called into question. The self-conscious lightness was only possible before a horizon of a “society” that thanks to the well-being, science and technique left the field of hard work, heavy of effort. In this being on the air, we have nothing more than the end of the force of gravity. The beginning of a subjectivity before the definitions of “serious” world, with the beginning of the lightness and free time (monotony) of the substance. Freedom understood as weight-bearing and light-weight forces. A climatological interpretation allows a polyvalent reality with the animations of the bubble-space-vital cells as a means of antigravity tendencies. Let’s look at the term “gravity.” Gravity refers to a situation of weight consideration. If we have a weight, we do not have lightness or buoyancy. To gain gravity is to rise, to feel the absence of weight, to be lighter than air like the Daedalus Syndrome that seeks the recreation of some ontic sensation or ontology. A balloon takes us to the top, in it we can overcome gravity. A “swarm of balloons” takes us into an era or a movement of antigravity. The “free spirits” are those who are hovering in the air and cannot have weight or direction already determined are in the flow of the current or the forces of the winds, the “airmen of spirit.” It says only “aeronauts”, the light ones that fly (in the sense of an atmosphere). It was well known that in Hegel’s metaphysics, the spirit, as a storehouse of all storehouses, was described with an image of a circle of circles. A system of immunity that has surpassed all evidence, and which has come to collect and gather absolutely everything that at any moment can or has been able to be filed, to be divided again, as provision of the objective spirit (law, religion, science , culture, art, technique, etc.). Self-receptive working receptacles, with the need for animation and with common motivations and solidary spatial representations, with large numbers of human beings inside, inside a sphere of meaning. This relationship would become, after millennia, something so obvious that the entry of the twentieth century, under the historical world units, the peoples, will be understood, without further analysis, as a self-receptive group of thick walls. Only with the entry into the post-national horizon is it that in the nations of the First World a new universal historical society emerged: thin-walled society.
What is now called “Artificial Intelligence” is a hybrid term for the familiar phenomena that in artifacts (tools, works and institutions), the intentions of producers survive almost independently of their products. This is precisely what was expressed in Hegel’s concept of “objective spirit.” What is objective is the intelligence invested in tools, works and institutions through their producers, who later separated themselves from them to be absorbed and applied by other intelligences (subjective spirit, students, users). This allows us to think about the transition that transits. In the man who already comes into the world with some kind of “fossilization” or “sedimentation” structure a receptacle (imagine for example water inside a bottle), and the possibility of transmitting them to future generations. This in operation tells us that, for example, the West has a certain “mold” or that frames man in Greek-Roman traditions, Christianity and Human Rights. These are the basis of the “formation” of individuals already shaped by laws, institutions, church, etc. This faith in punctuality or a certain mode of operation is a reflection of the metaphysical conviction that behind every fact there is a prescription and behind each prescription, the seal of a higher truth. The man when he calls the lady for the dance extends the right arm, the train has time of arrival and departure, some write from left to right others from right to left, in some countries it goes from left to right in others from the right to the left or the men to give the hand to the women put them on their right side. The bottle with its format apprehends the format of the content (continent-content, what it contains and what is contained). The objective spirit, roughly speaking, would be materialized culture. The subjective spirit is man, and the absolute spirit is the spirit, that is, the spiritual whole, but in the case of Hegel, also the whole as the whole, since there is a cosmological holism: the universe works the way of thought. Think of something as a “cosmic mind.” It is not surprising that Hegelian tradition, for example, of Paulo Freire when he says that education was always a form of “banking education”, where the student was the warehouse or warehouse of the teacher in the classroom. The teacher, in the case, deposited his knowledge in the student, the idea of not constructing an experience or even joint knowledge, only a transfer (checking account) functioning as a deposit. The students would end up storing the teacher’s information in a “memory vault.” This information is then drawn by the teacher on the day of the test (here I use an image of monetization, cash withdrawal). The student is the bank and the teacher is the user of this “banking house”. Freire uses the importance of the experience, as it is what Hegel distinguished between historical experience and psychic experience of the spirit.
In Paulo Freire these two dimensions come together, the experience we have of the history of our people and the individual, psychic experience of what we have been through. But in both cases, it is not the story of the lived, but the unspeakable situation of the lived in the moment lived (the single moment happened in a unique way and that only the individual can only live once), therefore “living.” Experience is a situation that is lived and not repeated, not copied, and occurs individually and singularly. Experience is what happens with the kiss. Just like, you fall in love with a girl at school. It’s different than falling in love with you at college, at work, at the gym. The experience is then in the tradition of non-thought, which is the rationalization that breaks the experience. It is pure occurrence, a kind of phenomenology (the appearance of the phenomenon) that arises in the world and marks profoundly. Experience would be something close to “experience”, a moment or even the idea of someone having experience in the sense that he has gone through similar and similar situations and this gives someone a tone of wisdom, someone who knows things. Life has taught him to live experiences of the most diverse.
Letters to a German Princess. Leonhard Euler.
Structure of an atom. It is the grouping, the coexistence that makes the space. Every being-in-the-world has traits of coexistence. The question of being, which is so heatedly discussed by philosophers, can be made here in terms of the coexistence of people and things in joint spaces. This implies a fourfold relation: being means someone. Being with someone else and with something more and something. This formula describes the minimal complexity that must be built in order to arrive at an appropriate concept of the world. We would have to think of a Sartre, but like an earlier vision. Coexistence precedes existence. A vision as a passage from being-there from existential philosophies to a relational being-with. The same could be applicable to life and zoogenesis with the best theory would have that we still have today the evolution and the emergence of life in waters.
Primitive bacteria. I’m not sure if they are all like this. Then we have four narratives that are consistent with the idea of the circle in Emerson as we have also seen in Sloterdijk. The cosmologies with the beginning of philosophy (poets and philosophers) theologies (also made by philosophers and religious) Biology (basically modern science: (with Emerson and Nietzsche). Theories of knowledge (with the first steps of the one who walks and sees the horizon, the horizons would have a basis in the modernity of utopias, adventure systems, mobility, globalization, self-elevation. Whoever walks can also climb mountains.
Photo of a church near my house.
So, I think it is possible to understand Emerson’s text. I hope you teach me more about him. Emerson writes with a somewhat “classic” English if that exists. I had a hard time reading the essay. I was impressed that he had some sort of religious or proquial education as a young man. I have not been able to reach a conclusion, but his text makes it clear that he may be religious, but he is not a skeptic of science. It speaks in shades of progress, enlightenment-illuminist (modern science), but also considers a cosmology, theology mixed with a certain pragmatism. Perhaps the philosophy of language has roots in him and in Nietzsche. He says: “We are all our lives reading the copious meaning of this first of the forms. A moral we have already deduced in considering the circular or compensatory character of every human action that every action admits being overcome.” He seems to work with a certain attachment to freedom in the idea of generosity (self-confidence to build something). Not infrequently, we find in the subtle basis of all the most generous thought of America, including of philosophical currents different from yours, it seems to have a transcendentalism. We can see traces of him in old and new pragmatists, for example: does not Rorty’s notion of “edification” remind us of Emerson? He seems to work with a kind of lofty self that rises and may be close to Nietzsche with the idea of the “will to power” and heteronarcism. If we think of stratified societies or the most primitive age of man, the egalitarian meeting around fire is translated into the attraction for possessive advantages, all of which relate to a place of preference. This ends up creating a space of inclusive solidarity leading to a larger one. Heat is a good, a possession. If we understand island societies as places of distribution of advantages of uncertain origin, but whose level of well-being are based on successes of the economy itself and on tax systems. Comfort becomes custom, a political ethic, one does not wonder where it comes from. The expense also comes from an impetus of squandering like the sun that gives us warmth, but never wants anything around. A return to Nietzsche to say that if we are to imitate something that is the sun, words of Zarathustra, because the sun walks to its chance of a generous way. It only gives and receives nothing. He affirms himself but wants to affirm the others. The alterities penetrate him to a composition that crosses him, enchants him, tortures him and surprises him.
Nietzsche’s innovative gift consists precisely in the provocation of a mode of being in which the receiver is activated in his strength, that is, in his ability to open up to richer futures. Nietzsche is a teacher of magnanimity and generosity, insofar as he contaminates the recipient of his gift with the idea of a wealth, whose acquisition only compensates when one has in view the possibility of dissipating it. The principle of self-preservation, typically conservative and which later the Enlightenment would also be hooked, falls to the ground if we adopt this view of Bataille or of Nietzsche himself. Life is a wanting more, but in every way, including, and especially, a want to spend more, a suicide self-consumption. Was not Marx’s idea of more value already? The true Nietzschean interrupts his life involved in pettiness (his concept of “love fati”: loving the facts as in marriage is said “in health and illness”, “in joy and pain”, this is the idea of non-Christian man). If I opened up to life without hurt, without resentment, without “it was not meant to be,” “I could have done differently.” This falls on the weakness of the weak, the humble as an ideology. We can think there, even the idea of contingencies reaching us. An accident, for example, may not necessarily have a culprit, we are in the cosmos interacting. The luck, the luck, the result of the game of data since, in short, neither were we nor anyone else who even released the data. When Nietzsche says love is fatigue he is saying just that: to live is to live all situations of life. Nietzsche was against Christians because he understood Christianity as the resume of the denial of life, that is, the freak idea to jump it, to go to the afterlife. The soul is not it? Deny life as lived, deny the body as a place? Foucault is dedicated to showing how the body is annulled by the utopias that are its own annulment. For example, the myth of the soul, that is, what allows us to leave the body, is also what makes us forget the body, subalternize it, penalize it. It shows several other forms of override. Why should anything happen that we should put on someone else’s account? As an ethical imperative, the “eternal return” works, in the form of a paraphrase of the Kantian imperative, as follows: "Live as one who is able to affirm each and every occurrence, who wants it again and again and again " (The Gaia Science, § 341). The facts are more than accepting, it is being willing to enjoy the occurrences, to feel filled by them. However, resigning oneself is not loving, accepting and, of course, unwillingly swallowing a lot of things. Do not be a frustrated. Somewhat like the idea of Fortuna we saw in Sloterdijk. Do not be resigned to the missed opportunity, the roulette wheel of fortune keeps turning. Montaigne makes it clear that his moderation, which can coexist with his uncertainties, is not resigned. “I will never be grateful to impotence for whatever good it does to me.” This is his basic teaching. Therein lies a trinity: skepticism, stoicism, and fortune. He writes, “I value my opinions a little, but I give too little to others, and fortune pays me worthily.” It is fortunate that we can refer to the end. Therefore, who knows and knows how to enjoy the moment, should be able to make good judgment of itself. He concludes the text as follows: “If the event defeats me and favors the party I refused, there is no remedy, I do not reproach myself, I accuse my fortune, not my work: this is not called repentance.” Montaigne undergoes another treatment: he prepares himself first, accommodating himself to the situation of one who does not make his inner self strange or distant from the outer self. With this training, he keeps an eye out. That would be his maximum and possible virtue. Not being able to take the woman away at the right time, then, you will blame her for being more rebellious than you could imagine. In that hour repentance is not worth, but simply the understanding of how much fortune is not tammable. Montaigne makes it very clear that, looking at his life, he notes that he does not know about repentance. Christianity has come to bite once and for all with traditional religions. But the law of love was avenged only as an ideology. It was as ideology that Nietzsche took Christianity. Emerson carried out what Nietzsche also stands as a flag: the struggle against humility. The so-called men of good deed would be none other than those who live for the atonement. They make life a spectacle, not an unfolding called living. They are so following the determinations of “good society” that they are incapable of any spontaneous gesture. For this very reason he pointed out what would be the “idols” in the sense of Bacon, capable of causing great shortages and causing man to succumb. The United States of Emerson possessed a characteristic, until today in force in America, of creating clubs, associations and philanthropic groups on one side and lobbies on the other. Emerson seems to be terrified of this. They were clumps of hypocrites that cut off individual freedom at its root.
That was his observation: American philanthropists who were one, but once in clubs, they became a plague. Emerson has always been at the heart of the American catastrophe movement, the spread of hypocrisy, that is, Lions and Rotary, models from a series of thousands of organizations that would save the world. All these associations always made dinners where they spent more there, in the food, than one could collect for the benefit intended. The conservatives, however, stole from Emerson this idea, and by a mental operation typical of discriminatory thinking (and which later operated with ideas of Nietzsche also bent), they turned against every non-philanthropic club, but of an effective claim of construction of a better world. An opening has been opened for frankness, so his individualism is heteronarcism, because he is cultivated as penetrating and penetrated and consequently as resounding. What, in a way, Nietzsche had also spoken in The Genealogy of Morals about Jewish morality to have overcome (the idea of noble x plebeian). Life in this case is something without hindrance, as did the cynical Diogenes. Because he told Alexander to leave the front of the sun so that his bath could be received. A resentful or stingy would not speak what he said. He extrapolated, squandered, sponsored and donated exhaustion. A kinship between generosity and cynicism. A kinship that culminates in the “ethos of generosity.” It is that Emerson represents both individualistic and democratic ideals. It is American ideals, elevated to the maximum of beauty and dignity. I have seen the essay “Self-confidence” very quickly and Emerson even defends contempt for family obligations, removal from the circle of friends, absence of any duty to Good, to Charity. He is blamed for giving alms to a beggar: “I have no obligation, he says, to remedy the lives of the poor.” “Are they my poor?” I tell you, foolish philanthropist, that I give the dollar, the ten cents, cent for such men who do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong … although I confess with shame that sometimes I succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar that I will eventually have the virility to refuse. " he interprets things as clubs, associations such as the breaking of individualism into a sort of “good boy” appearance that these people basically want followers and notoriety. The little man Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nietzsche, and Jules Verne were masters at it. Philosophies or stories while nautical reformulation (waters, oceans, horizons, boats, boats, ships, home an infinite, freedom, mountains). In them, the aggressive tones of the early European period of the liberation of boundaries in transatlantic translation reappear. The idea of passengers. In Jules Verne’s case, there is a change in traffic. The universal traveler renounces his documentary profession and becomes a pure passenger. He is a typical customer of a transportation service who pays to make your trip a mere matter of time and not an experience. A hero of punctuality. His only interest in the landscapes and images that travel through him is to cross them. The classic tourist prefers to travel with the windows closed. We have an “airy traveler” who transits through the spaces without fixing in any corner. There is no relationship let’s say “homeland.”
That is why when Zarathustra walks around the city he says that everything got smaller, the houses, the walls, the people, he arrived too soon. If everything fades, it is because a higher perspective has been taken. Zarathustra as Nietzsche’s spokesman has always been on the heights of mountains and walking through forests. It is common in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), Nietzsche say: “I build mountains, mountains higher and higher.” There we have mountains on high mountains, nothing more than incredible vertical dynamics and the attempt in this way to make more bearable the prose of modern life which, from these psychic tensions, regains a higher “phatos”. "Whoever one day teaches men to fly, will displace all bounds; the landmarks themselves will fly through the air, and that one will baptize the land again - from “the Light” (NIETZSCHE, 2015, p.183). Without weight or Floating (a kinetic idea, but also of weight loss. Man can achieve higher flights and altitudes in any direction). Free Spirits.
Nietzsche comet (2015, p.145):
I am a wanderer and a mountain climber, said to his heart, I do not like the plains and, it seems that I cannot be long stopped. And whatever happens to me, as a destination and as an experience, there will always be a mountain walk and climb: after all, you only experience yourself. The time was past when accidents could happen to me; and could he still touch me that was no longer mine? He just returns home, returns to me - my own Self, and what of him long ago was abroad, dispersed between things and accidents. And yet one thing I know: now I stand before my last summit, and the one that has been spared me the longest. Oh, I must start my hard way! Oh, I’ve started the most lonely walk! But he who is of my character does not escape at this hour: he who says to him, "Now you are following your path of greatness! Summit and abyss - They have now joined together in one! You follow your path of greatness: it became your last refuge what until then was your last danger! You follow your path of greatness; this must be your greatest courage now: let there be no way behind you! You follow your path of greatness; here no one will steal you! Your own feet have erased the way behind you, and above it is written: Impossibility.
Continues Nietzsche (2015, pp. 199-200):
I trace circles and sacred boundaries around me; less and less men are climbing with me to ever higher heights - I build a mountain range of ever more sacred hills. "But wherever you wish to go up with me, my brethren, take care that a parasite does not go up with you!" Parasite: it is a creeping worm, insinuating, that wants to fatten in your sick and wounded corners. And this is his art, to guess, in the souls that ascend, the points that are tired: in your discouragement and bad mood, your delicate modesty he builds his filthy nest. Where the strong is weak, where the noble is too soft - therein he builds his disgusting nest: the parasite dwells where the great has little wounded corners. What is the highest species of all that exists, and which is the lowest? The parasite is the lowest species; but who is the highest, feeds the largest number of parasites. For the soul that has the longest ladder and can go down deeper: how could one not find the greatest number of parasites? - The widest soul, within which one can most run, err and wander; the most necessary, which for pleasure is precipitated by chance: - the soul that is, and that delve into the becoming-to be; the one who possesses, and wants to launch himself in the will and longing: - the one who flees from herself, who reaches herself in the larger circle; the wiser soul, which reaches itself in the broader circle; the wisest soul, to whom foolishness speaks in the sweetest way: - the most self-lovable, in which all things have their current and countercurrent, their ebb and flow: - oh, as the highest soul would not have the worst parasites?
Are not we talking about mountains like Davos? So how does Thomas Mann in his work the Magical Mountain? A phrase we would only see in the nineteenth century, as the phrase calls Ecce Homo that "I am not a man, I am a dynamite." Something that can only be written in Switzerland so rare that it was, but also because Switzerland was a playing field of individual terrorism, and in Switzerland was the state in which dynamite was used for the first time used for civil purposes in construction of the Saint-Gothard (St. Gotthard) tunnel, one of the marvels of the 19th century. The tunnel proves that humans can not only cross mountains, but also how to pierce them, and no one perforates as well as the Swiss.
SLOTERDIJK, Peter. Spheres I: Bubbles. Translation: José Oscar de Almeida Marques. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2016, p. 21.
NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Willhelm. Thus spoke Zarathustra: A Book For All And For No One. Translation: Paulo César de Sousa. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2015, p. 183.
______ . p. 145.
______ . p. 199-200.
Movie: Netflix - Annihilation (2017).
Movie: Prometheus (2012).
Movie: Alien Covenant (2017).