Search

Hans Jonas’s establishment of an ethics of responsibility entails the simultaneous rejection of the modern notion of progress and the recovery of a form of “metaphysical speculation” that aids man in his search for an objective standard of value. Looking mostly at Jonas’s philosophical biology in The Phenomenon of Life and Mortality and Morality, this paper shows how Jonas’s thought on value judgments rests upon his critique of progress and science. The ethics of perfectibility and progress, Jonas shows, leads to a predicament in which the modern mind must navigate between the dangers present in the hubristic hopes of technological progress and the nihilism he finds in the thought of Martin Heidegger. Jonas’s philosophical biology serves as a critique of these positions that opens up an alternative orientation toward nature—one that grounds not only the ethics of responsibility but the uniquely human activity of reflection. The critique of progress serves, then, as a propaedeutic to the ethics of responsibility and the recovery of an image of man as the reflective animal. Such a recovery of metaphysical speculation from the dogmas of the physical sciences helps encourage a “new humility” in the face of man’s technological power. Jonas hopes to replace man’s desire for self-overcoming with the fear that his “Promethean immoderation” will lead to the biosphere's destruction. This fear acknowledges the limits of man’s knowledge and is thereby accompanied by a posture of Socratic ignorance and the reengagement with the philosophia perennis. That is, a less hubristic ethical theory depends upon a modest philosophical stance toward the whole. Only on the grounds of this epistemological modesty can we hope to proceed into the future with both caution and wisdom.

Context. In this article, we present a theoretical corpus built with developments from different disciplines, in which we bring together concepts, theories and “new” scientific perspectives developed during the 20th century. It is a work of deep theoretical reflection in the field of research methodology. Problem.The purpose of this work is to contribute to the overcoming of the disciplinary reductionism and assuming the complexity that today requires the construction of a science of the whole.MethodThis article has been developed through a deep interdisciplinary literature review.Result.These ontological and epistemological developments mark a profound change of course on modern science, questioning the fundamental principles that previously gave its sustention. Also, we consider that these developments are founding principles of life, so we seek to put them in relation to the reader’s everyday life, in intimate connection with everything that affects him and at the same time it is affected by him.Implication. The paper concludes with the challenge of the human quest of unraveling essential finds for the evolution of life that would help us to preserve and empower our existence. Contexto. En este artículo presentamos un corpus teórico construido con desarrollos de diferentes disciplinas, en el que reunimos conceptos, teorías y “nuevas” perspectivas científicas desarrolladas durante el siglo XX. Se trata de un trabajo de profunda reflexión teórica en el campo de la metodología de la investigación.Problemática. El propósito de este trabajo es contribuir a la superación del reduccionismo disciplinario y a la asunción de la complejidad que hoy en día requiere la construcción de una ciencia de la totalidad.Método. Este artículo ha sido desarrollado a través de una profunda revisión bibliográfica interdisciplinaria.Resultado. Estos desarrollos ontológicos y epistemológicos marcan un profundo cambio de rumbo en la ciencia moderna, cuestionando los principios fundamentales que antes le daban sustento. Además, consideramos que estos desarrollos son principios fundamentales de la vida, por lo que buscamos ponerlos en relación con la vida cotidiana del lector, en íntima conexión con todo lo que le afecta y al mismo tiempo es afectado por él.Implicación. El documento concluye con el desafío de la búsqueda humana de desentrañar los hallazgos esenciales para la evolución de la vida que nos ayudarían a preservar y potenciar nuestra existencia.

Günümüzde, teknolojik ve bilimsel araştırma alanlarındaki hızlı gelişmelere paralel olarak, sanatçıların hayata bakış açısı da önemli ölçüde değişmektedir. Dünyayı etkisi altına alan modern bilimsel gelişmeler, bizzat çeşitli sanatçı topluluklarının varlığı üzerinde ciddi bir izlenim uyandırmaktadır. Bu araştırmada ‘‘20. Yüzyıldan Günümüze Türk Resim Sanatında Bilimin Etkisiyle Psikanaliz Eğilimlerin Araştırılması’’ incelenmiştir. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, Türk Resim Sanatının modern bilimden nasıl etkilendiğini saptamak ve bu etkilerin psikanaliz kuramın önemli bir boyutu olan toplumsal dinamikler ile olan ilişkilerini incelemektir.Erich Fromm ve Alfred Adler’in, psikanalizin revizyon yaklaşımları, daha çok toplum dinamiklerine yer sunmakta ve 20. yüzyılın başından beri Sigmund Freud’un klasik psikanaliz kuramına katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu araştırmada, hem bu revizyon önerilerini hem de psikanalizin sosyal temsillerini ele almak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma verileri, betimsel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan literatür taraması ile toplanmıştır. Elde edilen verileri, kuramsal değerler çerçevesi ile ilişkilendirmek ve yeniden anlamlandırmak için, araştırmaya en uygun olan nitel araştırmanın olanaklarından yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, bilimsel süreçler bakımından analiz edilmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Özellikle 1950 sonrası Türk resminden günümüze kadar yoğun olarak bilimsel bakış açıları saptanmıştır. Ayrıca bilimsel devrimlerin etkisiyle de ilgili olarak, sosyal - psikanalitik yaklaşımlar derinlemesine irdelenmiştir. Today, parallel to the rapid developments in the fields of technologic and scientific research, the view of life of artists has also been changed dramatically. The modern scientific developments which has come upon World creates a serious impression on the very existence of the various artist societies.In this research, ‘‘From 20 st. Century to the Present, Evalution of Psychoanalysis Tendency, In Turkish Painting Art, by the Influence of Science’’ was examined. The main reason of this inquiry is to study to determine how the Turkish painting art is impressed by modern science and the relationships of these effects to community dynamics is a fundamental dimention of psychoanalytic theory. Having mostly community dynamics, the revision of psychoanalysis approach of Erich Fromm and Alfred Adler has been contributing classical psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud since the beginning of the 1900s. In this research it is aimed to discuss both this suggestions of revision and the social representations of psychoanalysis.Research findings were gathered with literature review that is one of the descriptive research method. In order to associate with framework of theoretical amount and reinterpret the data obtained, ıt has been benefited from the opportunities of qualitative research that is best fit to research. Research findings were analized and interpreted with respect to the scientific processes. Particularly, ıt has been densely detected scientific viewpoints from Turkish painting after 1950 until today. As also related to effect of scientific revolutions, ıt has been researched thoroughly social – psychoanalytical approachs.

Postulates and axioms have been used as a means of knowledge since ancient times. The well-known ancient Greek thinkers Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, and others used this cognitive tool. As an example, we all know – Euclid’s postulates. Although mathematicians consider him the pioneer of mathematics, one of the most famous mathematicians, nevertheless, it is more appropriate to consider Euclid as a Greek philosopher, who presented the most important postulates and axioms in his book "Elements". The prevailing opinion is that in essence it is exactly enough to prove all mathematical statements. Even though that the most perfect axiomatics is classical Euclidian geometry, there is an alternative here, i.e., modern non-Euclidean geometry.

Orientador: Prof. Dr. José Paulo Guedes Pinto Tese (doutorado ) - Universidade Federal do ABC, Programa de Pós Graduação em Ciências Humanas e Sociais. São Bernardo do Campo, 2022 O objetivo do presente estudo é defender a tese de que o pensamento de Karl Marx é portador dos elementos gerais que fundamentam a investigação científica contemporânea da chamada Ciência da Complexidade. A Ciência da Complexidade surgiu no século passado como um movimento que busca reorientar os princípios ontológicos, epistemológicos e metodológicos que balizam a investigação científica contemporânea, contrapondo-se aos princípios e preceitos que se estabeleceram com o nascimento da ciência moderna, cujos grandes nomes são Galileu Galilei, René Descartes e Isaac Newton. Com o nascimento da ciência moderna fundamentou-se uma análise da natureza e da sociedade baseadas no atomismo, reducionismo, mecanicismo e determinismo. Em contraposição, a Ciência da Complexidade fundamenta a análise científica a partir do sistemismo (teoria dos sistemas), emergentismo (teoria da emergência) e uma causalidade não-linear e não-determinista. Partindo dessas duas grandes perspectivas de ciência do período moderno que o pensamento de Marx tem sido aproximado. Por um lado, a visão hegemônica propagada pelos críticos do autor se baseia no argumento de que sua elaboração teórica se ampara em concepções científicas ultrapassadas, sobretudo, no reducionismo e determinismo. Por outro lado, alguns autores vinculados ao marxismo argumentam que o pensador alemão antecipa muitos insights da Ciência da Complexidade. No entanto, não há uma sistematização sobre a relação entre os fundamentos científicos baseados na teoria dos sistemas, teoria da emergência e uma causalidade não-linear e não-determinista e os que regem o pensamento de Marx. Dessa forma, além de apontar os limites das críticas ao pensamento de Marx, pretende-se argumentar que é possível encontrar os elementos gerais que fundamentam a reorientação científica da Ciência da Complexidade. Pretende-se demonstrar (1) a incompatibilidade do pensamento de Marx com o reducionismo e o determinismo; que (2) a concepção de sociedade em Marx como complexo de complexos, em que cada complexo social possui relativa autonomia de desenvolvimento, é similar ao que fundamenta as teorias dos sistemas contemporâneas mais desenvolvidas; (3) a distinção ontológica entre os domínios físico, biológico e social e a concepção relacional de sociedade em Marx fundamenta posições encontradas em visões da teoria da emergência; (4) a visão de causalidade e leis científicas em Marx é similar a noção não-linear e não-determinista da Ciência da Complexidade. The present study aims to defend the thesis that Karl Marx¿s thought bears the general elements that underlie the contemporary scientific investigation of the so-called Complexity Science. Complexity Science emerged in the last century as a movement that seeks to reorient the ontological, epistemological, and methodological principles that guide contemporary scientific research, in opposition to the principles that were established with the birth of modern science, whose great names are Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, and Isaac Newton. With the birth of modern science, an analysis of nature and society based on atomism, reductionism, mechanism, and determinism was founded. In contrast, Complexity Science bases scientific analysis on systemism (systems theory), emergentism (emergency theory), and non-linear and non-deterministic causality. It¿s from these two great science perspectives of the modern period that Marx¿s thought has been approached. On one hand, the hegemonic view propagated by Marx¿s critics is based on the argument that his theoretical framework is supported by outdated scientific conceptions, above all, by reductionism and determinism. On the other hand, some authors linked to Marxism argue that the German thinker anticipates many insights from Complexity Science. However, there is no systematization of the relationship between the scientific foundations based on systems theory, emergence theory, and a non- linear and non-deterministic and those that govern Marx¿s thought. Thus, in addition to pointing out the limits of criticisms of Marx¿s thought, it is intended to argue that it is possible to find the general elements that underlie the scientific reorientation of Complexity Science. It is intended to demonstrate the incompatibility of Marx¿s thought with reductionism and determinism; that (2) Marx¿s conception of society as a complex of complexes, in which each social complex has relative autonomy of development, is similar to that which underlies the most developed contemporary systems theories; (2) the ontological distinction between the physical, biological and social domains and the relational conception of society in Marx supports positions found in views of the emergency theory; (4) Marx¿s view of causality and scientific laws is similar to non-linear and nondeterministic notion of Complexity Science.