“É impossível para um homem aprender aquilo que ele acha que já sabe.” EPITETO

“Philosophy’s main task is to respond to the soul’s cry; to make sense of and thereby free ourselves from the hold of our griefs and fears. Philosophy calls us when we’ve reached the end of our rope. The insistent feeling that something is not right with our lives and the longing to be restored to our better selves will not go away. Our fears of death and being alone, our confusion about love and sex, and our sense of impotence in the face of our anger and outsized ambitions bring us to ask our first sincere philosophical questions. […] When the soul cries out, it is a sign that we have arrived at a necessary, mature stage of self-reflection. The secret is not to get stuck there dithering or wringing your hands, but to move forward by resolving to heal yourself. Philosophy asks us to move into courage. Its remedy is the unblinking excavation of the faulty and specious premises on which we base our lives and our personal identity. Philosophy’s purpose is to illuminate the ways our soul has been infected by unsound beliefs, untrained tumultuous desires, and dubious life choices and preferences that are unworthy of us. Self-scrutiny applied with kindness is the main antidote.

Skilled use of logic, disputation, and the developed ability to name things correctly are some of the instruments philosophy gives us to achieve abiding clear-sightedness and inner tranquility, which is true happiness. This happiness, which is our aim, must be correctly understood. Happiness is commonly mistaken for passively experienced pleasure or leisure. That conception of happiness is good only as far as it goes. The only worthy object of all our efforts is a flourishing life.

True happiness is a verb. It’s the ongoing dynamic performance of worthy deeds. The flourishing life, whose foundation is virtuous intention, is something we continually improvise, and in doing so our souls mature. Our life has usefulness to ourselves and to the people we touch.

The wisest among us appreciate the natural limits of our knowledge and have the mettle to preserve their naiveté. They understand how little all of us really know about anything. There is no such thing as conclusive, once-and-for-all knowledge. The wise do not confuse information or data, however prodigious or cleverly deployed, with comprehensive knowledge or transcendent wisdom. They say things like “Hmmm” or “Is that so!” a lot. Once you realize how little we do know, you are not so easily duped by fast-talkers, splashy gladhanders, and demagogues. Spirited curiosity is an emblem of the flourishing life.

Sharon Lebell, Brain Pickings

Trecho do livro “The Art Of Living: the classic manual on virtue, happiness, and effectiveness”

(San Francisco: Harper, 1995)

The Threat of Totalitarianism Today – Or Why Hannah Arendt Still Matters


Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), photographed in Paris, 1935.



By Eduardo Carli de Moraes @ Awestruck Wanderer

It’s an obvious fact that the books of great philosophers survive the physical existence of the philosophers themselves: their thought is alive for decades or centuries after their deaths, ideas kept safe, like a treasure in a trunk, in the books they’ve written. Even tough they are no longer among the living, we are still under their influence, and our thought and judgement can be expanded and enriched by their legacy. A dead philosopher may have a long future after the brain that used to act inside his or her skull has vanished from the world. Looked in this perspective, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask, for example: “what would Arendt have to teach us about Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror? What would Arendt say, if she was alive today, about the danger of totalitarian horror happening again in the future? And nowadays, where would Arendt recognize a totalitarian regime in action, here and now? “

Similarly, one might ask: what would Nietzsche have to say about the III Reich and the Nazi’s “Final Solution”? What opinions would Spinoza nurture about the Enlightenment thinkers or the French Revolution? Would Plato agree with Jesus Christ if they had ever met? And what about Hannah Arendt, if she was living today, would she criticize some of our societies as totalitarian regimes? This sort of questions, in which one tries to figure out what some thinker would consider about historical events or people he or she didn’t live to witness, may seem to many of us some sort of absurd anachronism. Some may argue that this line of questioning may have its value only as an intellectual exercise, but can never achieve truthfulness because it relies too much on speculation and conjectures; it’s just philosophy acting in science-fiction-mode, right?

27388_hannah_arendt_olgemtlde_heidemarie_kull_copyrigt (1)Well, Hannah Arendt’s case is interesting to adress, in this context, because she seems to be one of the alivest of all dead philosophers. And scholars, researchers, political theorists and journalists keep invoking Hannah Arendt’s thought to explain recent stuff, such as the Abu Ghraib scandal, which brought to light the wide-spread use of torture as the U.S. Army’s “interrogation method” at the detention centers for suspects of terrorism. An excellent doc about it is Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

In an article published by New Internationalist Magazine, for example, Sean Willcock evokes Arent’s très celèbre “the banality of evil” to explain Abu Ghraib’s mixture of terrible disrespect for basic human rights, combined with the banality of soldiers who took “selfies” with smiling faces, aparently stupidly unaware of the crushed dignity of those fellow humans they were humiliating, torturing and killing.

Also recommended: Standard Operating Procedure, a documentary by Errol Morris

Hannah_Arendt_Film_PosterIn our technologically connected “global village”, philosophers can also be brought back from their graves by other means than books, of course. Recently, Hannah Arednt was summoned from the tomb to appear as protagonist of Margaret Von Trotta’s bio-pic. Even tough it’s mainly an historical and biographical film, mostly about the Eichmman case, I feel there’s a lot to be found in the film to enlighten us nowadays (see, for example, this excellent article about the film @ “MantleThought.org).

I deeply agree with Celso Lafer when he argues: “Arendt is a classic in Bobbio’s meaning of the word: an author whose concepts, even tough developed in the past, still serve us to understand the world of the present.” There’s good fruits to be gained by trying to re-think and re-actualize Arendt’s thought, instead of treating it as fixed: wouldn’t it be better to deal with her works in a dynamic way, expanding it and adapting it to serve as tools for our understanding of new occurences? Of course this sort of thinking is based on what I’d call imaginative speculation, dangerously on peril of betraying a writer when transplanting him – or his ideas – to another era. But doesn’t the merit of a certain thinker lie also in what he has to say to posterity, what can be learned in his books by those who came afterwards?

In her book Why Arendt Matters, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl mobilizes Hannah Arendt concepts and theories in order to understand events that happened after Arendt’s death in 1975. What would Arendt have to teach us, for example, about suicide bombers on a jihad against “the West” and who hope to be rewarded in Afterlife by Allmighty Allah? And what would she teach us about the “War on Terror”, the military invasion of Afheganistan, Iraq and Pakistan, which were unleashed after the September 11th attacks in 2001?

Arendt’s inspiring intellectual courage, I think, lies in her ability to go beyond simple moral outrage. She tries to understand things that most people are so horrified of that they’d rather not even try to understand them. Instead of being paralysed in horror in front of such terrible realities – Hiroshimas and Auschwitzes, gulags and atom bombs… – Arednt confronts these realities and tries to judge them, understand them, put them in historical context, portray a web of relations inside which they occur. That’s why Arendt’s procedure, whether she analyses imperialism or anti-semitism or totalitarian societies, can be used by us today in order to enhance our understanding of our current geopolitical landscape.

9780300120448The Nazi concentration camps, those “factories of death”, made the most horrendous criminal acts into a day-to-day process. Trying to understand an era of genocide in industrial scale, Hannah Arendt never acts with simplistic demonization of the Nazis, for example. It would be narrow-minded and deranged to say that Hitler or Goebbels or Eichmann were “possessed by the Devil”, or have been born with innate evilness. Hannah Arendt tries to understand the emergence of “a new type of criminal, the consequence-blind bureaucrat, agent of a criminal state, so unconcerned for the world – or alienated from it – that he could help lay waste to it.” (YOUNG-BRUHEL: 5)

After carefully watching Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, Arendt was surprised to discover not a devilish man, but rather a dumb fellow, blindly obedient to his superiors in the hierarchy. Eichmann’s triking characteristic was, in Arendt’s eyes, his “thoughtlessness”, his stupidity.

“Thoughtlessness – the headless recklessness or hopeless confusion or complacent repetition of ‘truths’ which have become trivial and empty – seems to me among the outstanding characteristics of our time.” (ARENDT, The Human Condition, Prologue).

 Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us, when he says “everything that the Nazis did was legal”, that Justice (as a value, as a virtue) is not necessarily the same as the Law. There are plenty of unjust laws – based on racist discrimination or ethnical cleansing, for example. Eichmann, inside Nazi society, was a lawful agent. In a land were genocide is not outlawed, a mass killer is also a law-abiding citizen. If we are really to understand how did the terribles tragedies of 20th century’s happened, includin the “World Wars”, with its Holocausts and Atom Bombs, we need to understand how much evil can arise from blind obedience, from lack of thought and atrophy of judgement. Hannah Arendt provides us a path to follow if we wish to understand how could this horrors happen. Arendt enlightens us by providing a way to understand our tragedies in which there’s no explanation of evil as a pact-with-the-devil or the result of innate-bad-genes. Stupidity can become criminal:

“After listening to Eichmann at his trial and reading the pretrial interviews with him, she concluded that he had no criminal motives but only motives – not criminal in themselves – related to his own advancement in the Nazi hierarchy. (…) He was a man who, conforming to the prevailing norms and his Führer’s will, failed altogether to grasp the meaning of what he was doing. He was not diabolical, he was thoughtless. The word “thoughtlessness” is used by Arendt for a mental condition reflecting remoteness from reality, inability to grasp a reality that stares you in the face – a failure of imagination and judgment. (…) No deep-rooted or radical evil was necessary to make the trains to Auschwitz run on time.” (YOUNG-BRUEL, p. 108)

It reminds me of that famous experiment by Stanley Milgram, in which he tested how far can people go in the art of inflicting pain unto others. Milgram came up with a test to check how people would act when asked to approve the use of electrical shocks of increasing voltage; he wanted to see how wicked could a human being act just because a certain authority ordered it. The 20th century teachs us that hierarchy (and blind obedience to it) has much more relation with tragedy of epic proportions than the principles and actions of anarchists.

 Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, it seems to me, is also a reflection upon the evils that follow from conformity to unquestioned authority. The Origins of Totalitarism, I believe, can and should be read and understood with the aid of classics of social psychology such as Erich Fromm’ Fear of Freedom or Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism. The shocking fact about the III Reich is that those crimes were commited by law-abbiding citizens, who were only following the orders and honouring the Führer’s will. One of the psychological factors that made it possible for so many Germans to participate in the mega-machine of mass-murder was the notion that Hitler assumed all responsability, and those who worked in the concentration camps, those who operated the trains to the death fields, those who released the poisonous and deadly Zyklon B, could all excuse themselves by saying: “I was merely following orders.” Which reminds me of Howard Zinn’s often quoted statement, somewhat inspired by Thoreau, that civil obedience is in fact a danger far greater than civil disobedience:

Howard Zin (1922-2010)

Howard Zin (1922-2010)

Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem. We recognize this for Nazi Germany. We know that the problem there was obedience, that the people obeyed Hitler. People obeyed; that was wrong. They should have challenged, and they should have resisted; and if we were only there, we would have showed them. Even in Stalin’s Russia we can understand that; people are obedient, all these herdlike people… (ZINN, Howard. Here.)

 When Hannah Arendt writes about crimes against humanity, and relates them to an evil arising from thoughtlessness and lack of judgement, she seems to be praising the individual’s potential for autonomy. Blind obedience to leaders or to established laws, unthinking conformity to the status quo, can lead to disaster. According to Young-Bruehl, who also wrote one of the most comprehensive biographies about Hannah Arendt, “she had always written out of solidarity with the victims of such crimes, with the conviction that telling their story for the sake of the future was her life task.” (YOUNG-BRUEHL, op cit., p. 209). This, also, we can learn from Arendt: solidarity with those who are, nowadays, the victims of crimes against humanity – for example, the detainees in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or the pakistanis killed by drone attacks. The U.S.A.’s War on Terror, even tough it justifies itself as a crusade of Freedom against Terror, utilizes “totalitarian methods”, argues Young-Bruehl, and such methods can be traced back to the Cold War era:

One of the most threatening ways that adopting totalitarian methods to fight totalitarianism helped shape the current world order  was in the practise adopted by U.S. governments during the Cold War period of sponsoring Islamic fundamentalists as agents of opposition to Soviet communism. This began on a small scale during Eisenhower’s presidency with support for the Muslim Brotherhood led by the Egyptian Hassan al-Banna… In Washington it was originally hoped that the political Islamists would help prevent the Communist ideology from infecting Arab states, but the policy of support became progressively aimed more at promoting Arab supranationalism and funding middle-ground wars. U.S. support of Arab supranationalism (with its own ideology, Wahhabism) focused on the reactionary Saudi monarchy, which was encouraged to create a network of right-wing Arab states using the Muslim Brotherhood as its agent. The Saudis also built on the Brotherhood’s violent opposition to Egypt under Nasser, who was considered a revolutionary nationalist in Washington and posed a direct challenge to U.S. and British oil interests in the Gulf… The CIA, in the most portentous instance, supported the Afghan fighters  in their resistance to the Soviet Union’s imperialist invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. At that time, the CIA helped Osama bin Laden build a network of ‘Afghan Arabs’, the forerunner of Al-Qaeda…(YOUNG-BRUEHL, p. 57)

 It gets me wondering what Hannah Arendt would have to teach us about the 21st century. Abu Ghraibs and Guantanamo Bays would very likely seem to her as dangerously similar to nazi concentration camps or soviet gulags, places where people lose their basic human rights and become victims of dehumanizing humiliation and torture. What about State Surveillance, a current reality denounced by whistleblower Edward Snowden? Isn’t it a dangerously totalitarian method, George Orwell’s Big Brother finally realized in mass scale? I’m quite sure Orwell never meant 1984 to be an Instructions Manual! And what to say about a country whose nuclear arsenal is huge, and who goes to war against Iraq claiming that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction in his hands? As if the United States of Atom Bombs hadn’t weapons of mass destruction also! And what to say about the thousands of americans who, misled by demagogy, blinded by patriotism, bound to their “duty”, marched straight to war, dropped bombs, launched drones? Now, of course, the damage is done and the thousands of dead bodies pile up as yet another reminder of human folly and of the dangers of thoughtlessness and blind obedience.

In her thought-provoking article A Lying World Order – Political Deception and the Threat of Totalitarianism, Peg Birmingham investigates if totalitarianism is a threat today.  She answers with conviction – “yes it is!” – and argues with Hannah Arendt that the danger is co-related to the problem of political lies, of ideological deception. Historians can’t cease to be amazed by the re-occurence, in Human History, of mass credulity in ideologies and leaders. Humanity may seem ludicrous and ridiculous when we take a look back and discover the scale in which lies were massively believed in, with the outcome of radical evil of colossal proportions. How not to be flabbergasted with the fact that millions could believe Hitler’s racist lies about ethnical cleansing and the Jewish Plague, or believe W. Bush’s pious lies about Saddam’s nuclear bombs? It’s a scenario to make us bemoan the fate of this planet in a time, to remember Shakespeare’s King Lear, “when madmen lead the blind.” (SHAKESPEARE, King Lear, Act 4, Scene 1)

In her essay “The Seeds of a Fascist International” (1945), Hannah Arendt wrote: “It was always a too little noted hallmark of fascist propaganda that it was not satisfied with lying, but deliberately proposed to transform lies into reality. For such a fabrication of lying reality, no one was prepared. The essential characteristic of fascist propaganda was never its lies, for this is something more or less common to propaganda everywhere, and of every time. The essential thing was that they exploited the age-old occidental prejudice which confuses reality with truth, and made that true which until then could only be stated as a lie.” (ARENDT, 146-147) For example: if Mr. X makes a statement such as “my aunt is dead”, but then Mrs. Y contradicts him with “No, this ain’t true, I saw your aunt just a moment ago at the market”, all Mr. X needs to do to mutate his statement from a lie to a truth is “to go home and murder his aunt” (BIRMINGHAM, P. 74.) 

Winter Soldier

In Winter Soldier (1972), an excellent documentary about the Vietnam War, built upon statements from the soldiers who were there and witnessed it all, a man who fought with the U.S. Army gives us an example of the Political Lie in action: when civilians were killed (military leaders, then and now, call this “collateral damage”), the U.S. Army ordered that those people  were to be labeled as gooks, written down in the “official reports” as if they were vietcongs. Kill first, then label the murdered person a devil, a filthy gook, an unworthy-to-live commie. That’s the strategy. Every dead Vietnamese, even tough he might have been a pacifist, is suddenly turned into a dangerous and murderous communist terrorist.

We still live in such a world where the Terrorist Menace is constantly evoked, and in its name are justified colossal measures of war, emprisonment and mass surveillance. If there’s a threat of totalitarianism in the world today, it certainly lies in the way governments are dealing with the so-called Terrorist Menace. The established powers, the status quo, the ruling elites, label as terrorists those who oppose their crushing powers. In India, the “terrorists” are the maoists who oppose Hindu nationalism and Free Trade Capitalism (check Arundhati Roy’s brilliant report Walking With The Comrades); in Mexico, the “terrorists” are the Zapatistas of Chiapas’s jungles who defend the rights of indigenous people against the pillage of big business; in the U.S., the “terrorists” are Islamic jihadists threatening to re-enact September 11th; in Brazil, “terrorists” are those citizens who take to the streets to protest against banks and corporate power, and refusing pacifism in their Black Bloc techniques or Anarchistic tendencies. And so on and so on… The “terrorist danger” is what justifies massive investments in police, it’s what governenmets use to justify the use of repression and mass incarceration. Welcome to “Democracy”, the best one that money can buy.

The danger of totalitarianism lies entangled with the threat of mass-belief in political lies:

The problem of ideology is, for Hannah Arendt, the problem of political deception. Ideology is the mutation that establishes the lying world order, by replacing reality with an ironclad fiction. In other words, ideology is the ‘most devilish version of the lie'”; these are Hannah Arendt’s words, and we should hear her claim that the banality of evil is, at its very heart, ideology. With both its hellish fantasies and its clichés, the ‘banality of evil’ is characterized by a strident logicality – a logic through which the whole of reality is thoroughly and systematically organized, according to  a fiction with a view to total domination.” (BIRMINGHAM, P. 77.) 

I wonder if our totalitarian threat may reside, today, also in the Market, or in what many specialists call “The Economy”. Aren’t we endangered by the “Free Trade” totalitarian ideology? In which every means are acceptable in order to enforce the holy end of “Free Markets”? Including the drone-attacks against Pakistan, the war of aggression against Iraq, the pious crusade of genocidal proportions against Afeghanistan? Who is naive enough to believe it was all made for the sake of Freedom and Democracy, when it actually resulted in a massive pile of corpses?  Not to mention, in previous decades, how Free Trade capitalism, Yankee-style, forced its way all around the globe with the aid of the military dictartorships and coup d’états imposed by U.S. interest in South and Central America. We, Latin Americans, can never forget what happened in Chile in September 11th, 1973. Not to mention the military interventions in Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.), justified as Anti-Communist measures.

The political lie, the fascist twist of propaganda to be discerned here, I would argue, lies in the preposterous idea that “Free Trade = Freedom and Justice”. That’s a lying and deceiving equation: if we take a closer look at the ideology of Free Trade, of the theories so dominant in today’s capitalism and that call themselves “liberal” and “neo-liberal”,  we’ll discover that they have a tendency to increase mass incarceration and police repression, for example. The U.S. currently has 25% of all the world’s prisoners. When prison become a business, that can be run for profit (with the aid, of course, of strick laws of prohibition against illicit drugs), neoliberal capitalism shows its true face: that of nasty greediness, mounting inequality, resulting in a dystopic society in which millions and millions of its citizens are behind bars, while an elite hides away, locked inside comfortable bunkers, with obscene accumulations of capital in protected by Hi-Tech Security.

To enforce capitalism, the preachers of Free Trade, with their billions – which could be invested to end global hunger or treat curable diseases in all continents! – uy themselves an immense apparatus of military repression and aggression. Remember Seattle, 1999. Remember Québec City, 2001. Remember Genoa, 2008. Remember Toronto, 2010. Remember Brazil’s World Cup, in 2014, in which neo-liberal interests where defended with military police and national Army, throughout the streets, programmed to silence and crush all dissidence and protest to FIFA’s money-making machine…

As Arundhati Roy reminds us, everytime that the world’s Capitalist Elites try to join for their summits, their G8 meetings, their WTOs and Free Trade congresses, they are only able to do it spending millions in what they call Security – another political lie, ideological fiction, that masks the fact that “Security” is based on agression, repression, and incarceration of political prisoners (it’s been done for centuries: put in prison your oponents, then justify yourself calling them “terrorists”). The so-called Liberal Democracy in the U.S. spends so much in War and Prisons that it shows to the world its true face, behind the masks and the fake twinklings of ideological propaganda. Look at Detroit, once America’s pearl, one of the wealthiest metropolis on Earth, now reduced to a wasteland; Detroit, who could be photographed nowadays in order to illustrate Mike Davis’s book Planet of Slums. Remember New Orleans when Katrina hit: the same country who spends billions with its Wars and who lets profits run wild with “free trades” such as that of Guns and Ammunitions, leaves its own citizens in abandonment while they face one of the worst climate disasters of American History…

Why, if a mandatory evacuation was issued, ordering that everybody should leave New Orleans before Katrina hit, the U.S. government didn’t provide the means for this evacuation to happen? Money, you always tell me, is not a problem in the U.S., The Land of Profit. When the poorest of people in New Orleans, who couldn’t afford a bus or plane ticket to a safe area, who couldn’t afford renting a hotel room in a Hurricane-free town, the least you’d expect from a sensible government is help. Perhaps they were too busy doing war in the Middle East, or spying on people’s private lifes in search of potencial terrorists, or torturing political prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, to ready be able to listen as New Orleans’ cried for help while drowning out in one of the crudest of the ecological turmoil’s of our “anthropocene” era. Rapper Kanye West, witnessing this, couldn’t do nothing but to speak on National TV: “George W. Bush doesn’t care for black people”. Neither he does care for Muslims. While the U.S. Army was bombing and torturing Muslims, in New Orleans it left off, unatended to, abandoned to their luck, those American Citizens who were still in town when the Hurricane came. As Naomi Klein shows in her The Shock Doctrine, after the disaster the authorities in charge of defending Free Trade capitalism took an interest in New Orleans: they saw that in Disaster there was Opportunity. What used to be Public service, in New Orleans, could now be refashioned to attend Private Interests. This is another reason why Arendt still matters: because Free Trade ideology wants to erase the notions of Public Space and of Common Good, in order to enforce its society of private interests and individualistic consumerism, protected by military force and crowded prisons.

In 1972, in a conference at the Toronto Society for the Study of Social and Political Thought (York University), Hannah Arendt said (and it remains for me inspirational stuff): “If we really believe – and I think we share this belief – that plurality rules the earth, then I think one has got to modify this notion of the unity of theory and practice to such an extent that it will be unrecognizable for those who tried their hand at it before. I really believe that you can only act in concert and I really believe that you can only think by yourself.” (pg. 305) Arendt matters because she can teach us a lot about thinking for ourselves (instead of accepting fixed truths that rain from above in the hierarchy…) and because she can teach us how to act in concert to criticize, dismantle and fight the threats of totalitarism today. 

* * * * *


ARENDT, Hannah. “The Seeds of a Fascist International”. Pgs. 146-147.

———————-. The Human Condition, Prologue.

BIRMINGHAM, Peg. “A Lying World Order – Political Deception and the Threat of Totalitarianism”In: Thinking in Dark Times, New York: Fordham University press.

YOUNG-BRUEHL, Elisabeth . Why Arendt Matters. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006.

SHAKESPEARE, William. King Lear. Act 4, Scene 1.

ZINN, Howard. Zinn Reader. Seven Stories Press, 1970.

* * * * *



Hannah Arendt (1906-1975)

DISSERTAÇÃO DE MESTRADO – “Além da Metafísica e do Niilismo: a Cosmovisão Trágica de Nietzsche” [Eduardo Carli de Moraes, UFG, 2013]

Além da Metafísica e do Niilismo:
a Cosmovisão Trágica de Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)




Nietzsche: eis um pensador que – nas palavras de um de seus comentadores, Gianni Vattimo – “é decisivo para o nosso presente e ainda repleto de futuro.”

 Uma das frases mais célebres de Nietzsche está em Ecce Homo: “Eu não sou um homem, eu sou dinamite” [1]. Já o sub-título de Crepúsculo dos Ídolos traz outra imagem de impacto: “Como filosofar com o martelo”. Estes dois retratos que Nietzsche pinta de si mesmo mostram que o filósofo sabe do potencial explosivo de suas críticas e demolições. Mas não nos esqueçamos que a dinamite não serve apenas para destruir e arruinar, mas também para abrir terreno para novas construções [2]. E também que um martelo, nas mãos de um escultor, serve para transformar um bloco de pedra em uma obra-de-arte, e que um médico, por sua vez, utiliza o martelo como instrumento para um diagnóstico clínico.

Na minha investigação, procurei compreender a filosofia nietzschiana como um empreendimento em que as facetas crítica e a criativa são indissociáveis, em que o destruidor e o criador estão reunidos. Uma máxima de A Gaia Ciência expressa isso muito bem: “Somente enquanto criadores temos o direito de destruir!” [3] Não considero, portanto, que o pensamento de Nietzsche seja motivado por um ímpeto apenas iconoclasta, polêmico e aniquilador. Mas sim que procura contribuir para libertar-nos do jugo de morais autoritárias, valores anti-naturais, superstições daninhas, dogmas inquestionados etc. A sabedoria nietzschiana nos convida à afirmação e à celebração da existência, em prol do desabrochar de potencialidades ainda não efetivadas, em favor de uma vitalidade ascendente e transbordante.

Neste trabalho, procurei mostrar que Nietzsche realiza não apenas uma crítica devastadora dos sistemas filosóficos metafísicos, das religiões instituídas e dos valores morais sacrossantos. Mas que há também um esforço, por parte do filósofo, em compartilhar uma sabedoria cujas características procurei explorar e que inclui uma revalorização do corpo, da sensorialidade, do devir, da multiplicidade, da alteridade, da pluralidade de perspectivas etc.


“Se Deus não existisse, tudo seria permitido.” – Ivan Karamázov, personagem de Dostoiévski (1821-1881)

Apesar de muitas vezes referir-se a si mesmo como um “imoralista”, isto não significa, como procurei argumentar, que Nietzsche faça apologia de um vale-tudo moral, onde é abolida toda e qualquer responsabilidade e dever. Seria  simplista e falsificador atribuir a Nietzsche a célebre idéia do personagem de Dostoiévski, Ivan Karamázov, que sustenta que “Se Deus não existisse, tudo seria permitido”. Procurei mostrar que a morte de Deus, em Nietzsche, é vista como acontecimento potencialmente libertador, como ocasião para a emergência de novos valores e estilos-de-vida.

“As consequências mais próximas [da morte de Deus], suas consequências para nós, não são, ao inverso do que talvez se poderia esperar, nada tristes e ensombrecedoras, mas antes são como uma nova espécie, difícil de descrever, de luz, felicidade, facilidade, serenidade, encorajamento, aurora… De fato, nós filósofos e ‘espíritos livres’ sentimo-nos, à notícia de que ‘o velho Deus está morto’, como que iluminados pelos raios de uma nova aurora; nosso coração transborda de gratidão, assombro, pressentimento, expectativa – eis que enfim o horizonte nos aparece livre outra vez, posto mesmo que não esteja claro, enfim podemos lançar outra vez ao largo nossos navios, navegar a todo perigo, toda ousadia do conhecedor é outra vez permitida, o mar, o nosso mar, está outra vez aberto, talvez nunca dantes houve tanto ‘mar aberto’…” (A Gaia Ciência, 343)

Procurei destacar a ruptura que Nietzsche realiza com uma das correntes hegemônicas da filosofia ocidental, o platonismo, em especial a cisão do real em dois “mundos” (o Sensível e o Inteligível), o que Nietzsche considera uma “fábula”. A ideia de um mundo metafísico, sobrenatural, suposta morada do absoluto e do imutável, seria, segundo o pensamento nietzschiano, um dos mais duradouros equívocos da história da filosofia. Procurei argumentar que, em Nietzsche, todos os conceitos abstratos da razão, forjados a partir da experiência empírica, permanecem tendo uma existência derivada, como produção de cérebros humanos necessariamente vinculados a corpos animados pela vontade. Procuramos elucidar, portanto, o quanto a filosofia de Nietzsche procura refletir sobre a base fisiológica e psico-somática de onde emergem os conceitos abstratos, os valores morais, as doutrinas religiosas etc. Trata-se, como indica Patrick Wotling, de “denunciar as interpretações falíveis que desde Platão triunfam na tradição filosófica, interpretações idealistas, que esquecem seu estatuto e sua fonte produtora, o corpo.” [4]

Procurei elucidar que Nietzsche se mostra contrário a todas as moralidades baseadas no ideal ascético, ou seja, que negam valor ao corpo, ao desejo, às paixões, ao tempo, à esfera dita “mundana”. A ascese, isto é, o esforço auto-mortificante de purificação, baseia-se em geral na crença em uma alma imortal, que supõe-se destinada a um destino glorioso no além-túmulo. Nietzsche diagnostica neste ideal ascético uma hostilidade contra a vida, uma “calúnia” contra a realidade terrena, um anátema lançado contra o corpo e seus instintos, uma incapacidade de afirmação da existência em sua real finitude e em seus incontornáveis tormentos. Como diz Oswaldo Giacóia, o ideal ascético, como se manifesta por exemplo no platonismo e no cristianismo, “leva a efeito um movimento de completa desvalorização da imanência em proveito da transcendência. (…) Representa, assim, a desvalorização absoluta do ‘mundo’ e da ‘vida’ em proveito de uma vida imaginária, de um ‘além-do-mundo’.”[5]

O esforço de crítica da moral que Nietzsche empreende, portanto, tem como intenção possibilitar uma libertação das energias vitais que foram sufocadas, reprimidas e culpabilizadas por doutrinas morais ascéticas que oprimem os corpos, condenam os prazeres e pregam a hipertrofia de uma razão tirânica contra as paixões. Como diz Tongeren, “mediante uma crítica à moral, Nietzsche pretende abandonar intencionalmente o caminho aplainado e descobrir a abertura para aquilo que é possível para além desse horizonte, a abertura para ‘muitas auroras que ainda não brilharam’.” [6]

* * * *

nietzsche (2)
Em meu trabalho destaco também que Nietzsche confere muita importância ao senso histórico, isto é, a um pensamento filosófico sempre atento ao ininterrupto fluir do tempo. Nietzsche forjou seu método genealógico no intento de compreender como vieram-a-ser as instituições, legislações, valores morais, costumes e crenças com que hoje nos deparamos. Compreender a origem histórica dos valores morais e relacionar seu surgimento a conflitos sociais de classe e jogos de dominação equivale a mostrar quão infundada e ilegítima é a pretensão das morais e das religiões de possuírem uma verdade eterna de fonte divina. Em Humano, Demasiado Humano, por exemplo, Nietzsche critica um defeito de muitos filósofos, que:

“Involuntariamente imaginam o homem como uma verdade eterna, como uma constante em todo o redemoinho, uma medida segura das coisas. Muitos chegam a tomar a configuração mais recente do homem, tal como surgiu sob a pressão de certas religiões e de certos eventos políticos, como a forma fixa de que se deve partir. Não querem aprender que o homem veio a ser, e que mesmo a faculdade de cognição veio a ser…  Tudo veio a ser, não existem fatos eternos, assim como não existem verdades absolutas. – Portanto, o filosofar histórico é doravante necessário, e com ele a virtude da modéstia.” [7]


“Tudo flui. Não se entra duas vezes no mesmo rio.” – Heráclito de Éfeso (535 a.C. – 475 a.C.)

Quis mostrar que a filosofia de Nietzsche combate, portanto, a idéia de que existem valores morais, sistemas filosóficos ou doutrinas religiosas de validade eterna, verdade absoluta ou universalidade legítima. A própria Humanidade é concebida como um fenômeno histórico, re-inserida na Natureza que lhe deu origem, de modo que Nietzsche rompe também com a noção criacionista de uma origem sobrenatural para o homem. Por estar “embarcado” na correnteza da história, e por ser uma espécie animal dentre milhões de outras que co-existem no seio da Natureza em fluxo, o homem é inescapavelmente um ser mutante, que integra um cosmos eternamente movediço. Quer aceite este seu destino, quer lute contra ele, cada um de nós, para usar a expressão da canção de Raul Seixas, é uma “metamorfose ambulante”. Procuro compreender o pensamento de Nietzsche, portanto, como fiel ao preceito do filósofo grego Heráclito, que sustentava que “tudo flui” e que “é impossível entrar duas vezes no mesmo rio”.

Considero ainda que Nietzsche jamais sugeriu “fazer tábula rasa do passado”, nunca elogiou o esquecimento da História ou o aniquilamento de seus legados, mas sim uma relação dinâmica e fecunda com o passado: como escreve Karl Jaspers, “em nenhuma parte Nietzsche estima o ato de esquecer o que foi transmitido pela história e recomeçar a partir do nada… Toda sua obra é penetrada por seu intercâmbio com a grandeza do passado, mesmo daquele que ele rejeitou.”[8]

Prova desta relação frutífera com o passado é o modo como Nietzsche reativa a potência do mundo grego pré-socrático, como por exemplo os ritos dionisíacos e a obra dos poetas trágicos (em especial Ésquilo e Sófloces). Nietzsche formulou assim uma sabedoria, que encarna em seu Zaratustra ou nos espíritos livres, cujas características procuramos explorar nessa pesquisa: trata-se de um sujeito afirmador de sua vontade e de seu corpo, criativo e questionador, capaz de superar todo ressentimento através do amor fati, que jamais se acomoda em seu estado atual e procura sempre superar-se, e que age no mundo mais como sátiro do que como santo, mais como dançarino do que como estátua. Em A Gaia Ciência, por exemplo, Nietzsche pinta o retrato do espírito livre, que seria dotado de “uma alegria e uma força de soberania  (…) em que o espírito recusaria toda fé, todo desejo de certeza, tendo prática em manter-se sobre as cordas leves de todas as possibilidades e até mesmo em dançar à beira do abismo. Esse seria o espírito livre por excelência.” [9]

Para Nietzsche, as convicções e os dogmas são inimigos do filósofo e prejudicam-nos em nossa aventura de conhecimento. Quem quer de fato tornar-se amigo da sabedoria tem de ousar libertar-se de certezas apaziguadoras, crenças reconfortantes e tomadas-de-partido inquestionadas. Como diz em Aurora: “A serpente que não pode mudar de pele perece. O mesmo ocorre com os espíritos que se impedem de mudar de opinião; cessam de ser espíritos.” [10] O filósofo autêntico, de acordo com Nietzsche, é uma figura em que se encarna um certo ímpeto heroico de busca pelo saber. Relembremos as palavras de Aurora:

“Nosso impulso ao conhecimento é demasiado forte para que ainda possamos estimar a felicidade sem conhecimento ou a felicidade de uma forte e firme ilusão. (…) A inquietude de descobrir e solucionar tornou-se tão atraente e imprescindível para nós (…) que o conhecimento transformou-se em paixão que não vacila ante nenhum sacrifício e nada teme, no fundo, senão sua própria extinção…” [11]

Um clássico comentário do pensamento de Nietzsche escrito por Karl Jaspers

Um clássico comentário do pensamento de Nietzsche escrito por Karl Jaspers

A filosofia, afinal, não é uma busca interesseira por ideias apaziguadoras ou convicções agradáveis, nem por um cômodo repouso no colo de verdades imutáveis, mas um heróico navegar, em mares perigosos, em busca de um saber sobre o real que nada garante que terá um sabor doce ou que vá nos tornar felizes. O filósofo autêntico, para Nietzsche, segundo nossa interpretação, é aquele que ousa ir à conquista de um saber, ainda que este possa ter um gosto amargo e ainda que acarrete consequências trágicas; é aquele que, como diz Karl Jaspers, tem a coragem de entrar no labirinto, como fez Teseu, mesmo sabendo que terá que defrontar-se com o Senhor Minotauro. [12]

Consideramos que o efeito do convívio com a obra Nietzsche é a de um tônico para a vontade-de-viver. Eis uma filosofia, enfim, onde há muita sabedoria a assimilar, em especial por aqueles que, como diz Giacóia, “não temem fazer dos abismos do sofrimento uma fonte inestimável de conhecimento.” [13]

Em suma: procuramos mostrar o pensamento de Nietzsche como superação tanto da metafísica quanto do niilismo, culminando numa cosmovisão trágica que, longe de ser pessimista, significa uma celebração dionisíaca da existência como ela é, sem exclusão de seus aspectos mais dolorosos e problemáticos. Arqui-inimigo da apatia da vontade, do niilismo desalentador, do ascetismo auto-mortificante, Nietzsche, através de sua obra, canta um hino à vida que inclui um louvor à alegria, aquele afeto que, segundo Spinoza, aumenta nossa potência de existir. Como diz Zaratustra: “Desde que existem homens, o homem se alegrou muito pouco: apenas isso, meus irmãos, é nosso pecado original!” [14] Já em Humano, Demasiado Humano, Nietzsche escreve: “Eis o melhor meio de começar cada dia: perguntar-se ao despertar se nesse dia não podemos dar alegria a pelo menos uma pessoa. Se isso pudesse valer como substituto do hábito religioso da oração, nossos semelhantes se beneficiariam com tal mudança.” [15]

Para concluir este prelúdio, cito mais uma instigante idéia de Nietzsche, que me parece um belo emblema de sua “fidelidade à Terra”, em oposição à idolatria religiosa de ídolos sobrenaturais ou metafísicos: “Não há no mundo amor e bondade suficientes para que tenhamos direito de dá-los a seres imaginários.” [16]

Eduardo Carli de Moraes,
Goiânia – 08/11/2013


* * * * *


[1] NIETZSCHE, Ecce Homo. Por Que Sou um Destino, §01.

[2] É o que aponta Martha Nussbaum: “Indeed, this was the whole purpose of genealogy as Nietzsche, Foucault’s precursor here, introduced it: to destroy idols once deemed necessary, and to clear the way for new possibilities of creation.” Citada por Brobjer, Nietzsche’s Ethics of Character, Pg. 49.

[3] NIETZSCHE. A Gaia Ciência, §58.

[4] Ibid. Pg. 155.

[5] GIACOIA, O. Labirintos da Alma: Nietzsche e a Auto-Supressão da Moral. Pg. 13-38.

[6] TONGEREN, P.V. A Moral da Crítica de Nietzsche à moral. Pg. 43-44.

[7] NIETZSCHE. Humano, Demasiado Humano. Capítulo 1, §2.

[8] JASPERS. Nietzsche: Introduction à sa Philosophie. Pg. 445.

[9] NIETZSCHE. A Gaia Ciência. §347.

[10] NIETZSCHE. Aurora.  §573.

[11] Ibid, §429.

[12] JASPERS. Op Cit. Pg. 231.

[13] GIACOIA. O Humano Como Memória e Como Promessa. Pg. 183.

[14] NIETZSCHE. Assim Falou Zaratustra. Op cit. Livro II, Dos Compassivos. Pg. 84.

[15] NIETZSCHE. Humano Demasiado Humano, §589.

[16] Humano, Demasiado Humano, § 129. Citado a partir de Lou Andreas-Salomé, op cit, Pg. 139: “Il n’y a pas assez d’amour et de bonté dans le monde pour avoir licence d’en rien prodiguer à des êtres imaginaires.”

Souvenir da banca na companhia de Adriana Delbó, Maria Cristina Franco Ferraz e Adriano Correia.

Um souvenir fotográfico da banca – com Adriana Delbó, Maria Cristina Franco Ferraz e Adriano Correia.



P.S. – nos próximos meses, tentarei desmembrar este mestrado em 3 ou 4 artigos, a serem publicados em revistas de filosofia, se possível, ou aqui no blog mesmo, pra “socializar” a pesquisa e “pôr na roda” o conhecimento. Em breve!

Siga viagem…



(341-270 A.C.)

Marble bust of Epicurus. Roman copy of Greek original, 3rd century BC London

Marble bust of Epicurus. Roman copy of Greek original, 3rd century BC. London.



(Abril, 591 pgs)

* * * * *

Cambridge Classics
Edited by Hermann Usener
2010, 530 pgs.

Hermann Karl Usener (1834-1905) published his monumental Epicurea in 1887. The volume is a collection of Epicurean texts and citations from a wide range of classical authors including Arrian, Cicero, Diodorus, Euripides, Plato and Seneca. The volume includes critical texts of Epicurus’ most important letters: Letter to Menoeceus, Letter to Herodotus and Letter to Pythocles, preserved by the third-century compiler Diogenes Laertius. The letters give important summaries of Epicurus’ philosophy. Usener’s pioneering work represented the first attempt to deal critically with the manuscript traditions behind Epicurean texts. His reconstructions of the texts included in this volume are based on a thorough understanding of the trajectories of textual transmission. Each text is supported by a detailed critical apparatus, and another apparatus records manuscript glosses and scholia. This work provided for the first time accurate and reliable texts for the critical study of Epicureanism.

* * * * *

Diogenes Laercio

Diogenes Laertius

This rich compendium on the lives and doctrines of philosophers ranges over three centuries, from Thales to Epicurus (to whom the whole tenth book is devoted); 45 important figures are portrayed. Diogenes Laertius carefully compiled his information from hundreds of sources and enriches his accounts with numerous quotations. Diogenes Laertius lived probably in the earlier half of the 3rd century CE, his ancestry and birthplace being unknown. His history, in ten books, is divided unscientifically into two ‘Successions’ or sections: ‘Ionian’ from Anaximander to Theophrastus and Chrysippus, including the Socratic schools; ‘Italian’ from Pythagoras to Epicurus, including the Eleatics and sceptics. It is a very valuable collection of quotations and facts. The Loeb Classical Library edition of Diogenes Laertius is in two volumes.

* * * * *

De Witt“Epicurus and His Philosophy”
by Norman Wentworth DeWitt
(1954, 396 pgs)

Epicurus and His Philosophy was first published in 1954. In this volume, the first comprehensive book in English about Epicurus, existing data on the life of the ancient philosopher is related to the development of his doctrine. The result is a fascinating account that challenges traditional theories and interpretations of Epicurean philosophy. Professor DeWitt demonstrates the fallacy of centuries of abuse of Epicurus and the resulting distortion of most discussions of Epicureanism that appear in standard philosophical works…

[+] Book Review at JSTOR

* * * * *

St Paul“St. Paul and Epicurus”
by Norman Wentworth DeWitt
(1954, 212 pgs.)

St. Paul and Epicurus was first published in 1954. Everyone who is interested in the meaning of the Bible will find this a revealing study, for it opens up a new window on the New Testament, a window that was walled up centuries ago by prejudice. Professor DeWitt throws new light on the writings of the Apostle Paul by showing how they were influenced by the teachings of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. That Epicureanism could have a place in Christian religion may come as a surprise to those familiar with the conventional concept of the philosophy of Epicurus. As demonstrated in the meaning of the English word epicure, derived from the name of the ancient philosopher, the modern world has long associated Epicurus with the indulgence of sensual pleasure in food and drink. But,as Professor DeWitt makes clear both in this volume and in its predecessor, Epicurus and His Philosophy, the pleasures which the ancient Greek espoused as constituting the chief good of life were not the pleasures of the flesh. The merit and the lure, however, of the Epicurean ethic, which allied happiness with pleasure, were so appealing and so widely acknowledged that Paul had no choice but to adopt it and bless it for his followers with the sanction of religion. He could not, though, admit indebtedness to a philosopher who had long been accused of sensualism and atheism, and there was no choice, therefore, but to consign Epicurus to anonymity. Through his scholarly investigation into the Epicurean source of certain portions of the Epistles, Professor DeWitt provides new explanations or translations for seventy-six biblical verses. The close scrutiny of biblical passages is carried out, not in a spirit of vandalism, but in a quest for accuracy, and the result is a challenging, readable, and absorbing book.

* * * * *

Konstan“A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus”
by David Konstan
(2008, 200 pgs)

Epicurus, and his Roman disciple Lucretius, held that the primary cause of human unhappiness was an irrational fear of death. What is more, they believed that a clear understanding of the nature of the world would help to eliminate this fear; for if we recognise that the universe and everything in it is made up of atoms and empty space, we will see that the soul cannot possibly survive the extinction of the body – and no harm to us can occur after we die. This liberating insight is at the core of Epicurean therapy. In this book, Konstan seeks to show how such fears arose, according to the Epicureans, and why they persist even in modern societies. It offers a close examination of the basic principles of Epicurean psychology: showing how a system based on a materialistic world view could provide a coherent account of irrational anxieties and desires, and provide a therapy that would allow human beings to enjoy life to the fullest degree.

* * * * *

Festugieres“Epicurus and His Gods”
Andre-Jean Festugière
(Harvard, 108 pgs)

Table of Contents




* * * * *

Tim O Keefe“Epicurus On Freedom”
Tim O’Keefe
(Cambridge, 2005, 186 pgs)

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271/0 BCE) has attracted much contemporary interest. Tim O’Keefe argues that the sort of freedom which Epicurus wanted to preserve is significantly different from the ‘free will’ which philosophers debate today, and that in its emphasis on rational action has much closer affinities with Aristotle’s thought than with current preoccupations. His original and provocative book will be of interest to a wide range of readers in Hellenistic philosophy.

* * * * *

Facing Death by James Warren“Facing Death”
James Warren
(Oxford, 2006, 256 pgs)

The ancient philosophical school of Epicureanism tried to argue that death is “nothing to us.” Were they right? James Warren examines the arguments they offered and evaluates their success, setting them against modern philosophical accounts of how death can be a harm. He also asks whether a life free from all fear of death is an attractive option and what the consequences would be of a full acceptance of the Epicureans’ views.

* * * * *

Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition

“Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition”
Jeffrey Fish, Kirk R. Sanders
(Cambridge, 2011, 281 pgs)

* * * * *

“The Greek Atomists and Epicurus”
by Cyril Bailey
(1964, 619 pgs)

* * * * *


“Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom”
David N. Sedley
(Cambridge, 2008, 254 pgs)

This book studies the structure and origins of De Rerum Natura (On the nature of things), the great first-century BC poem by Lucretius. By showing how he worked from the literary model set by the Greek poet Empedocles but under the philosophical inspiration of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, the book seeks to characterize Lucretius’ unique poetic achivement. It is addressed to those interested both in Latin poetry and in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.

* * * * *

Lucretius2“Lucretius: On the Nature of Things (1873 press)”
Titus Lucretius Carus, translation by W.H.D. Rouse

* * * * *


“The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius”
Stuart Gillespie, Philip Hardie
(Cambridge, 2007, 382 pgs)

Lucretius’ didactic poem De rerum natura (‘On the Nature of Things’) is an impassioned and visionary presentation of the materialist philosophy of Epicurus, and one of the most powerful poetic texts of antiquity. After its rediscovery in 1417 it became a controversial and seminal work in successive phases of literary history, the history of science, and the Enlightenment. In this Cambridge Companion experts in the history of literature, philosophy and science discuss the poem in its ancient contexts and in its reception both as a literary text and as a vehicle for progressive ideas. The Companion is designed both as an accessible handbook for the general reader who wishes to learn about Lucretius, and as a series of stimulating essays for students of classical antiquity and its reception. It is completely accessible to the reader who has only read Lucretius in translation.

* * * * *


“Oxford Readings in Lucretius”
Monica R. Gale
(Oxford, 2007, 400 pgs)

This book gathers together some of the most important and influential scholarly articles of the last sixty to seventy years (three of which are translated into English here for the first time) on the Roman poet Lucretius. Lucretius’ philosophical epic, the De Rerum Natura or On the Nature of the Universe (c.55 BC), seeks to convince its reader of the validity of the rationalist theories of the Hellenistic thinker Epicurus. The articles collected in this volume explore Lucretius’ poetic and argumentative technique from a variety of perspectives, and also consider the poem in relation to its philosophical and literary milieux, and to the values and ideology of contemporary Roman society. All quotations in Latin or Greek are translated.

* * * * *

Lucretius Serres“The Birth of Physics”
Michel Serres
(2001, 109 pgs)

The Birth of Physics focuses on the largest text still intact to reach us from the Ancient Greek Atomists – Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura – but mobilises everything we know about the related scientific work of the time (Archemides, Epicurus et al) in order to demand a complete reappraisal of the legacy. Serres argues that the Greeks had all the mathematical resources to formulate an adequate picture of the physical principles acting on matter. Crucial to his reconception of the Atomists’ thought is a recognition that their model of atomic matter is essentially a fluid one – they are describing the actions of turbulence. Recognition of this fact throws in relief the force of this ancient thought with respect to the recent disciplines of chaos and complexity. It explains the continuing presence of Lucretius in the work of such scientific giants as Nobel Laureates Schroedinger and Prigogine. This book is truly a landmark in the study of ancient physics and will promote not only more work in the area but also stimulate a more general rebirth of philosophical interest in the ancients.

PATTI SMITH: Discografia completa de 1975 a 2012 (“There’s a million membranes to break through…”)


Discografia completa de 1975 a 2012:
http://bit.ly/1lFmtzp (torrent, 320kps, 2.6 gb)

1975 – Horses [30th Anniversary Legacy Edition] 2 Disc
1976 – Radio Ethiopia
1978 – Easter
1979 – Wave
1988 – Dream Of Life
1995 – Paths That Cross – 2 Disc
1996 – Divine Intervention
1996 – Gone Again
1997 – Peace And Noise
2000 – Gung Ho
2002 – Land – Best Of 1975 To 2002 – 2 Disc
2004 – Trampin
2007 – Twelve
2011 – Exodus – Live 1978
2012 – Banga


Gaia no Antropoceno – Bruno Latour em “Uma Antropologia dos Modernos”



“Geologists are beginning to use the term ANTHROPOCENE to designate the era of Earth’s history that extends from the scientific and industrial revolutions to the present day. These geologists see humanity as a force of the same amplitude as volcanoes or even plate tectonics. It is now before GAIA that we are summoned to appear: Gaia, the odd, doubly composite figure made up of science and mythology, used by certain specialists to designate the Earth that surrounds us and that we surround, the truly global Globe that threatens us even as we threaten it.

If I wanted to dramatize – perhaps overdramatize – the ambiance of my investigative project, I would say that it seeks to register the aftershocks of the MODERNIZATION FRONT just as the confrontation with Gaia appears imminent.

At all events, we shall not cure the Moderns of their attachment to their cherished theme, the modernization front, if we do not offer them an alternate narrative… After all, the Moderns have cities who are often quite beautiful; they are city-dwellers, citizens, they call themselves (and are sometimes called) “civilized”.

Why would we not have the right to propose to them a form of habitation that is more comfortable and convenient and that takes into account both their past and their future – a more sustainable habitat, in a way? Why would they not be at ease there? Why would they wander in the permanent utopia that has for so long made them beings without hearth or home – and has driven them for that very reason to inflict fire and bloodshed on the planet?

After all these years of wandering in the desert, do they have hope of reaching not the Promised Land but Earth itself, quite simply, the only one they have, at once underfoot and all around them, the aptly named Gaia?”

“An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns”
Harvard University Press, 2013. Translated by Catherine Porter.
Download e-book at Library Genesis.
Join: http://www.modesofexistence.org


Adam and Eve (Art by Alex Grey)

* * * * *

You might also enjoy:

The Affects of Capitalism (full lecture)
(If you wanna skip the intro, Latour actually starts speaking at 12 min and 45 seconds.)