Super - Heroes and that such a philosophy

Look at that guy in the leotard color there! Look, another jumping from building to building! Wow! He is struggling with a monster ... Well, for those unfamiliar with the universe is surprised of Super-Heroes, of course this is fictitious, but many are learning the secret that was kept alive for years by a group of fans of comics, the classic stories of the super- heroes, who are still being assessed today by a public increasingly interested in these stories, especially with the invasion of these super heroes on screen.

Every film released, a crowd is filling the theaters, the stalls packed with comics (comic books) and several products being marketed, with prints of superheroes. But what do these guys dressed up to become so popular? What they do to become so attractive?

One of the most remarkable developments in pop culture today is the strong resurgence of the superheroes as a cultural icon and entertainment, but these stories are not as innocent as they seem, they not only bring fun, is exposed in a sharp questions concerning ethics and morals, that whole 'being normal' faces in their day-to-day. These stories introduce and discuss the issues vividly paramount faced by humans, questions relating to ethics, personal and social responsibility, justice, crime and punishment, the mind and human emotions, personal identity, the soul, the notion of destiny, the meaning of our life, we think of science and nature, the role of faith in the harshness of this world, the importance of friendship, the meaning of love, the nature of a family, to the virtues classical and courage and many other topics. Why so many cling to the universe of superheroes and give wide audience to this issue. It was the Greeks who were the first to understand the causes hearing. According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC), the experience (the plot on screen or reading a comic `s), strong feelings and tragic events, it was expected that people purify their own emotions, so does the viewer / reader reflect on the central problems of the human condition, the nature of fate or conflict between mercy and justice.

I imagine that no one looked at the stories of superheroes with a philosophical look.What? You still says it has nothing to do? Well, let's give some examples: everyone has heard the superhero Spider-Man, right?

Shortly after being bitten by a radioactive spider (in the movie a genetically altered spider), giving Peter Parker the power which he can turn into Spider-Man, Uncle Ben, feeling that there is something different about her nephew gives following advice: "With great power comes great responsibility." After the death of his Uncle Ben, this phrase, Peter Parker will take for the rest of his life as Spider-Man. This philosophically, is what philosophers Bentham (1748-1832) and Stuart Mill (1806-1873), called utilitarianism, where we are required to perform the action that produces greater common good. This is Spider-Man becomes a hero, saving lives, not using their powers to benefit themselves. This shows us that Peter Parker should be prepared to make personal sacrifices to fulfill their moral obligations. Utilitarians say we have no duty to do things that we can not, but that anyone who has special skills, should use them for the greater good.

But why do people save? Why risk their life fighting villains in the name of a greater good? The great German philosopher Kant (1724-1804), tells us that our primary duty is to act in a way that satisfies what he called the Categorical Imperative, a formula that dictates that we should always treat people as ends in themselves and not as mere means. But Kant also emphasizes that perform an action according to the categorical imperative is not enough for her to be good. In essence, the action must also be made for the right reasons, ie, Spider-Man should do it just because it is his duty. According to this interpretation, therefore, the intentions of our arachnid hero are relevant to the moral value of what it does.

Well, there's the example of the most famous stories of alien superheroes, Kryptonian name Kal-El or Clark Kent Earthman name, or as we all know, Superman. What a special guy like Kal-El / Clark Kent (Superman), you are doing in saving lives, instead of using his powers to their benefit, for example, using his great strength, squeezing a coal to achieve a diamond. Why it becomes a newspaper reporter, the 'Daily Planet'?Well, Kal-El/Clark Kent (Superman), would not prove much, what would be the reaction of people to know that he is an alien, and that could melt a car with a look of anger. Surely the people would be frightened by this kind of being. So Kal-El is hiding behind his glasses, hiding the identity of Clark Kent, being a citizen. Kal-El, knows he is not here, not of this world. It was created between humans, but actually is not one of us. Kal-El (Superman) is the sole survivor of his race. He is an alien, and feel very alone in this world, holding this heavy burden, his grand secret. And therein lies the key for his heroics. The basic desire to belong, to belong, is a fundamental aspect of human nature, our need to tap into the other is vital to our well-being. I assume that even if an alien, Kal-El feels the same basic need of the community.

But Kal-El, does not give back to his alien heritage, he knows that only when he uses his natural gifts of the Kryptonian race, it feels alive and engaged. Only when it acts at its full potential instead of hiding behind a pair of glasses, he participates in the truth of the world around them. Only when he is openly Kryptonian (Superman), it can be a man on earth, with exuberance and excellence. When he lives as the person really is, and applies its distinctive strengths in the service of others, he assumes his rightful place in the community, from which it is now part and in which she feels accomplished. It was no coincidence that when Aristotle sought to discover the root of happiness, he began to explore what it is to live with excellence. Superman, in his way, found the same relationship.

Since the X - men who are teenage mutants and, therefore, repugnant to normal human (as we did when we discriminate against someone), who fear and hate, trying - as the animals. But unlike normal humans, these young mutants do not hate them because of discrimination, by contrast, are struggling in these defenses. Aristotle explains this attitude of the X - men, by virtue ethics, where they lay their potential to achieve a common good.

Well, the Super-Heroes has much to say, so maybe that explains why the success in film making, and why they are so long on the market (Batman has more than 70 years, Superman almost 100 years) . The film adaptations as well as comics, the hero makes us seek within ourselves, not to be jumping from buildings or buildings in fighting crime, but doing a heroic act that can save our day.

Lipman: superheroes for thinking and philosophy for children

One of the great icons of pop culture today is the resurgence of the superheroes of comic books. Thanks to the screen adaptations of movies and animations on TV, every child knows these characters, and tries to interact with these in their play and leisure time. But what these characters can bring to our children?

Besides the purpose of entertaining, the HQ's [1] present important questions of everyday life, such as: personal and social responsibility, justice, crime and punishment, human emotions, personal identity, difference, meaning of life, friendship, love. Superheroes teach by example and show the good and justice into action.

Lipman says, the classroom, would have to devote to thinking, research, self-assessment [2]. For him, we must teach students how society works, because the way they think it works will, in due course, influence the way it works [3]. But how do children understand and question the workings of society, bringing them to research and reasoning? An education focused on the development of rationality, for Lipman is the ideal, that is, an education for thought. But how to do this today? Which use teaching tools? The school should prepare the necessary changes for this education, philosophy of delivering programs for school children. And the comics, this could be extremely helpful, they serve as teaching material for learning the philosophical thinking about society, gender issues and differences, and even the question of human understanding.

In fiction from the pages of comics, the superhero alter society, making it perfect in our eyes. If we use these stories in the classroom, with a program of philosophy for children, this tool will help in the education, redeem society. The super-heroes would go out of the pages, to become critical models of our society. Children through entertainment to better match the content, understand the society, because these stories are not so innocent so they bring in literally life experiences in our day to day.

The superheroes of the comics are great examples to follow. They teach us what to do in various situations, always showing the good side is the right way to go. The comics have always been pioneers in bringing issues of paramount importance to discussion on means of mass communication, so only the issues discussed by activists and their media restricted.

The comics always adapted to the historical context. Showing the desires of society, making the superhero guardians of morality and ethics.

Lipman was a major incentive for my research on superheroes and philosophy. His show of philosophical education for children is needed in our schools. So I come look at comics, philosophical foundations for assistance to school philosophy. With this tool, the HQ's, could do very well the relationship between education and society, in which Lipman underlay.

[1] Histórias em Quadrinhos.

[2] LIPMAN, M. A filosofia vai à escola. São Paulo, Summus Editorial, 1990. p.23.

[3] LIPMAN. Op. Cit. P.138

Cliff Soul

That our pleasure!
referring to who?
referring to anything!

Idolatries imaginary
filth of everyday life,
everything is in the underworld of the soul
everything is in opposite ways.

Calm
realize the perception,
idolize the soul
force the heart.

Waste your time with the madness
drink the wine of the imaginary
kill your thirst of lust.

Drink, cry, love
the life that awaits you
with a triumphant smile.

See,
everything is at your back
see,
everything around it.

I see things that I do not think
I notice things that do not exist
Madness?
not
imagination ...

All I can
I believe in everything,
soul, verb, heart
I do not believe in the metaphysical
physicist has not yet awakened
atrophied soul
the heart was smashed.

Stair

The moon lights
sees
the night I go out walking
the ladder of life
which often come down
and I can not always rise.

The night I see the wind meander
thus leading to my memories
a walk around.

I hope, pray
echo songs of glory
of repentance and forgiveness,
suffer, cry
but the tear does not echo the same song
echoes songs that are not on the agenda
Songs of war
it will wake

The stairs lead to distant places
top
but often lower
quiet night I sing
before tears
washing this ladder.

Many are the dreams of freedom
debauchery,
feel pleasure drain
agreement and I am on this ladder
I do not know where it will take me.

Ando, and walk
undirected
clueless,
the stairs lead me to empty yard
and the rivers full.

Numbs my soul
calloused feet
by walking on the stairs
who takes life
or leads me to death
climb up and down
clueless
undirected
just know that I am
on the ladder.

Fly, fly little bird

Bird wants to love when

sing, sing without stopping,
is free,
displays her best plumage
to win.



The man wants to love when
love??
do not know what does,
demand to know what love is.



Bird when you fly
opens its wings and flat in the air.




The man to fly
need machines.




I would be like a bird,
sing when I want to love,
color my means, getting embarrassed
half ashamed,
but knowing that everything is worth.



Fly like a bird,
Instead of opening the wings
open mind
and so planar
even if only on a balance of child
make me feel free
free as a roguish smile of a child.


I wanted to be like bird ...

Big Brothers Brazil

This week came to an end the entertainment of the Brazilian people, to spy on persons confined in a program most watched Brazilian TV, Big Brother Brazil 9.
Wow! Have been nine editions, and each new release, increases the desire to spy on what they do. Well, for us Brazilians, we love to know about others, this is a full plate. Vibrate, touched, twist and brothers are voting in the house. Truly is the people who decide who leaves the house, and who wins the rich prize, the coveted one million dollars.
Twist and choose who should be the new millionaire or know something weird is before my eyes. We have the false impression of knowing the people or the brothers who are confined there, because it can spy on them at any time. But I wonder whether people who are inside are really the same as they were out here. Well after leaving the house, will never be the same and so when they leave the house are estimated few worried about what we thought, and another inside, for me, they live a character in the game by one million. Therefore, I believe we have the false impression to know them because we are being led by the emotion of the scene shown, in other words, we are alienated. We look at the heroes (as he calls them, the presenter Pedro Bial), our features, and deposit these to our confidence and our virtues. We seek to identify with someone's home and delegate to it, to have the pleasure of experiencing the success that we often never have to come and cheer and rejoice, like us, the premiums they receive.
This program is nothing more than a new version of the program extinct SBT Topa everything for money, only with more emotion, like the soap operas, but there are some that will say, "bah, but one million is at stake." Well, not really found one million on the street, but even where our sense of the ridiculous will, for a certain amount of money, we got to the ridiculous, the possibility of achieving this award. We have become a clown (heroes in the eyes of some), to play the game. That show is entertainment for millions, our idiosyncrasies, our private goes to the bag, I mean going into the air. Simply those become our fetish, our longings.
We live in a time (or ever lived), where everything ends in sex, where everything is done for money, we lose our identity, our private sectors, our intimacy, for a possible award that, in most cases is uncertain. Today (or ever), we come across anything for money, sex has become money, our values have become capital, to our education. I am perplexed at the society we live in today, but the important thing is "... not get out of there, be watching. "

Equality vs. Freedom

What we believe about freedom? And equality? In the society of the contemporary world saw that? The political forms of the present world, there is none that has these two walking side by side.
Born with the Revolution and developed over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the formal equality is the maxim all are equal before the law. Aims to subject all individuals and companies to the rule of law and entitled without discrimination as to creeds, races, ideologies and socioeconomic characteristics, as opposed to legal privileges based on social status and political prestige. But with the socialist influence was developed from the second half of the nineteenth century as a form of government, equality, returns to reduce social inequalities, reflecting the unequal treat the aphorism of measured inequality in order to provide protection Legal particular parts of society that often, throughout history, appear at a disadvantage. But this political regime in turn takes away the freedom of the individual, because everyone should behave as equals, injuring personal freedom.
The word freedom means the condition of an individual not be subjected to the will of another and, therefore, to have power over yourself and your actions. The ability to reason and appreciate the clever way the world around you is what gives a man the sense of freedom, understood as an expression of human will. And it is the system of "democratic" government, which in the present day (from the Cold War) is believed a system of government where men are free. But this freedom has a high price or even a camouflaged freedom, where many have no access rights to life and human dignity. Thus suffering from inequality.
As we see, there is no political system, that can work these two human needs, when looking for one, injures another. In a political system, the concept of equality, describes the lack of differences in rights and duties among members of a society. And in another system, the individual is free when society does not impose any limit unfair, unnecessary or absurd. The company must also protect their rights, that is, their liberties, powers and privileges basics. But this should defend a free society that give conditions for its members to enjoy equally the same freedom. Both political systems prevailing in our societies, sin in these human needs. While demand equality, takes the liberty of individuals, and the other where freedom prevails, the individual has no right to equality.
Just us then, to better understand the ideology of the Enlightenment, for it was there that first came the idea of political and social freedom and equality, that he had the idea to revolutionize the way we govern. But perhaps the idea of freedom and equality can go hand in hand only when the third element of the ideology of the Enlightenment, blossoming in humans, brotherhood.
But maybe it needed this century to impregnate her. Because we are (maybe) living a process of evolution Enlightenment.
It was in the nineteenth century (defined as the century of freedom, even the history of freedom struggle is contiguous to the history of mankind), that the ideal of freedom was consolidated. Fall, then the last corners of slavery. This freedom "physical" - reflected by the right to come and go and stay - is the most basic of them, and why not say, the more essential, given that all other forms of freedom are based on it.
The twentieth century, is said to be the century of equality, since from its first decades, there have been moves by the recognition of equality between men and women, between whites and blacks. It's in the past century that formed the whole ideology against discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, creed, marital status, social status or sexual orientation. The greatest influence was the war that was not announced, but froze the soul of many, the 'Cold War'. The countries on the U.S. side, "democratic", they begin to address the issue of equality as something of paramount importance to prevent the communist advance, where the equality / socialism was their biggest banner.
And in this century, as a matter of logic, could raise the total banner of the Enlightenment: the Brotherhood. It is the solidarity that is so present in the media, and the actions of social organizations, government and business. In this new century the focus of protecting the rights of the individual must leave and go, definitely, to the collective. Rights are inherent to the human person, not considered in itself but as a collectivity.
And perhaps that is how we will see after three hundred years, the ideology of the French philosopher Rousseau (1712-1778) and among others, that influenced the French Revolution, to work out and really show that another world is possible. With freedom, equality and fraternity.

Four streets around the navel

In a village three centuries ago in the southern region of Ireland, UmbilicusVille began to see their village develop economically and socially through their local shops. The village was a strategic point, everyone who wanted to take off the center or north of that country would have to go through this.
Many workshops of artisans (future industry) in the region began to settle in the vicinity of the village, because betting on the strong trade for this, to sell their products. The burgos (dealers) are increasingly developed. Inhabitants of other regions seeking to dwell UmbilicusVille village in search of income for their families in trade and workshops of local artisans. The village was developing more and more.
Around 10 years the village of UmbilicusVille had no features of the village, rather a median town, the development was beating the doors of that place. But as today, the development also brings chaos.
As in any village or town in any historical era, urban development, had wounded presentable at all the naked eye. Discrimination, marginalization, emerging peripheries. In its small and little streets, the village had UmbilicusVille, chaos was remarkable, with large numbers of people and horse-drawn vehicles, walking in any direction, clutter city streets became a little chaos in their streets.
The demands for change were acclaimed by the urban population of UmbilicusVille, so in order to develop more. It was great dissatisfaction with the prince regent of that province.
After a certain time, the praise was heard, and by decree of Prince Regent, UmbilicusVille longer be called village becoming town, and every street that the city then possessed, would have to have a single meaning, thus ending the disorder in local traffic.
But the discontent of the boroughs of UmbilicusVille continued, but with other reasons. Many complained about losses from the changes, especially in local traffic. Many created images of their navels (like posters) to protest against a decree of change, in order to say "... I'll take care of my navel, "... I think in my navel "or" I am not in favor of another, but to me, "did not realize that UmbilicusVille longer a village and became a city, and who do not live like ten years ago, the decree thought of a whole and not a plot. (This story is fictitious. Any resemblance is purely coincidental or due to chance).
Long ago, we humans, we seek and thirst for change. We seek the new, we think we have an open mind, that we evolved. But when these changes come, we in an unexpected way, we have to fear them, we see that we are Orthodox, we would have only the "idea of change," but we are conservative. Instead of evolution, the kicker is that we want or immobility.
What's wrong with change? In which they often require. Why go backwards in time to evolve? Egocentrism affect the evolution of a whole. Because the changes can make the world revolve around everyone. But many do not have to lift his head, is stunted at the neck, thus fixing our gaze to the navel. Not everyone wants to walk the streets built around their navels. The world spins for all!

Old

Sweating faces wrinkled by suffering.
In your eyes do not see more brightness;
hopelessness is something normal in their day to day.
Twisted bodies, molds wrong, outdated fashion,
so that if you target your waste.
Calloused hands, sweaty bodies and wrinkled faces.
So is the profile of those who struggle to survive and no longer live.
Living on the fine line of life and death.
Will survive until the destination where you go.
We pretend not to see them, but they insist on passing in front of us,
with an outdated image of our being.
Contempt becomes due, opposite the beings of this month.
The steps are not his but that of the last decade,
his arm has the same strength of years ago.
Their minds have many memories.
The various body aches and feelings.
Feeling, only one, to live with dignity.
Old,
twisted minds we have,
with outdated ideas,
not by time but by ignorance.

Knowledges

What are we? If we do something.

We are what we are not,

pretend that we are what we are not.


Pretend to know what we know.

But what do we know? If we know,

we know we do not know

and still have many who continue to pretend they know.

But we know that they do not know what they know,
and we know who pretend to know.

Sons of the Revolution

End of military dictatorship, amnesty, events and young people in the streets, thus beginning the 80 (years in which I was born), fertile time for the Rock National Brazilian. "Take your hands off me, I do not belong to you ...", it seems a bit arrogant, but deep down was a manifestation of freedom, the music will be, was announced; democracy.
It was discovered in this decade one of the greatest and most memorable rock bands of the country, Keith Urban, this became a fad among young people of that decade and still today, selling thousands and discs. The theme music of Keith Urban on the structure of the lyrics, was a little conservative about the rules of grammar, however, using poetic license, the author of songs (Renato Russo) try to pass feelings, emotions and perceptions about being young in a world context of uncertainty and frustration, while that with determination and fight, there would be an opportunity to realize dreams. So Keith Urban, becomes a voice for young 80s. Among fans there is a feeling controversial reflection, joy, courage to listen and decipher the lyrics of the band, as if the letters were written when directed to the life of all Brazilians, but as since that decade until today, are a constant changes in our daily lives and yet the lyrics are impressive.
"After twenty years in school, it is not difficult to learn all the tricks of his dirty game, not how it should be, let's do our homework there then you will see, their children dropping kings do comedies in film with its laws ...". The lyrics 'Generation Coca-Cola', and the song "What country is this" show letters of impact, motivating young people to make history, to change it, because the descendants of the 80 were the "children of the revolution" the changes of thought, paradigms and political system, and in front of the legion, urban seeking changes, was their leader Renato Russo.
Fans of the band were a religion, turning this into a national phenomenon. The Keith Urban, for many no longer just a great band, of course, with the lyrics of their songs, spiritual guides and posture, especially to never give up and do it yourself, "When all is lost, there is always a way, when all is lost, there is always a light ...".
The Keith Urban recorded eight albums, posthumously to the death of their leader, Renato Russo, the victim of AIDS. On the last album, the track "Ambient Music" is a phrase that says "... and when I'm gone, no, do not cry for me ...", suggesting an early farewell. His death revived a kind of mythology about his name, making him an idol among teenagers who accompanied the stage even more popular Keith Urban .
The legion Urbana scored the generation of the 80s and 90s, and today it is hard to forget the lyrics as 'Fathers and Sons', sung by many "... you must love people like no tomorrow," or even the song 'Perfect', "... Let's celebrate our righteousness, greed and slander ... come on, my heart is with haste, when hope is scattered, but the truth set me free, no more evil and deception. Come, love always has the door open, and is coming to spring, our future again: come on, what comes is perfection. "

Universal Values: Indefinitions between Morals and Ethics

"He has no moral authority to talk about it"; "... ethics has been tarnished, "" ... who is he to talk about it ";" I'm shaken morale ...". We are tired of hearing this news in Brazil. We no longer want or hear about politics, full of CPI's (parliamentary commission of inquiry), economics, social issues and crime. But what is ethics and morals? What are the values we give to them? What do they mean when they talk about these? Differentiate between ethics and morals is not something very simple to understand, and there is not much consensus on that.
Well, etymologically speaking, both have the same effect: ethics comes from the Greek ethos (habits), and morality comes from the Latin word mores, which also means the same thing, customs. Both refer, therefore, originally, traditional customs of certain communities that are viewed by its members as values and obligations.
Defenses are found that the difference lies in the fact that ethics is the realization of morality, say, ethics would be the 'way of putting into practice the moral values', or even ethics refers to public life and individual moral behavior.
Philosophically speaking, it seems more usual to understand that ethics as a theory of morality, ie as referring to moral customs and natural values of certain crops, ethics rationally studying social behavior. The ethics would be a rational foundation of morals and values, would be a critical analysis of rational norms, customs and social values, while morals would therefore be a natural or imposed by a dominant power (political, economic, religious, and so on. ) which is merely assimilated and followed as unquestionable dogma, which need not be justified. This is something cultural. Ethics seeks to rationally consider what counts or should count, and can challenge even the very cultural values (moral).
The fact that Muslim women wear the Burqa (typical costume) or still see in some African communities, root out the clitoris is common for these women have no sexual pleasure. These examples are rationally unethical, but this is a purely moral question, is something steeped in those cultures, which is followed without question, becoming dogma. The ethic is critical and seeks to establish fundamental values. If it is the rational study of human society on what is good or what is bad, it is the philosophy focused on the practical behavior of men.
There is a crisis in ethics, that is, a disbelief of their own ability to reason in support of values. We do not know to distinguish what is cultural and what can be scientific, moral or ethical, right or wrong. We are on the verge of chaos and know what is right and choose to do, helps us move away from this abyss and do not lose the north, is that one day, we had one.

The ethics of such

In the elections that have (here in Brazil) and in delayed, again we hear much talk about ethics. Some candidates have promised to make ethics in politics (something that does not see), still others promised to be ethical in their four-year term (but see only one practice a policy of paternalistic and unethical). There is less time we had in issuing a famous television advertisement where a sports commentators and actors., Spoke of ethics, but what is that such ethics? Do we and the politicians we elect and talk about it, know what is ethical?
When deciding how to act, we are often faced with uncertainty, confusion or conflict between our inclinations, desires or interests. Then came the philosophy of ethics such as to form human conduct.
For Socrates (Greek philosopher, 47 BC) know the key is to know about the man, hence the maxim "know thyself", this is a practical knowledge, know and act righteously. The Socratic ethics is rational. Find in it a conception of good and proper. In short, kindness, knowledge and happiness are closely interwoven. The man acts rightly when he knows well and, knowing him, can not fail to practice it. Furthermore, breathing well, he feels his own man, and following, is happy.
Aristotle (also Greek philosopher, 384-322 BC), part of the idea that what each of us wants is a happy life in the fullest sense of the term. What will give us this, he says, is the full development and exercise of our capacities in compatibility with life in society. The ethics of Aristotle, like Plato, his master, is your political philosophy, since for him the social community and politics are the necessary means of morality in the pursuit of happiness.
Walking a little extra in the history of philosophy, there is the philosopher Kant (German philosopher, 1724-1804), which for him, must act in such a way that you treat humanity in your person or in the person of another, always with a purpose and never merely as a means. Focus on the belief of Kant, that morality requires that we treat people always as ends and never merely as a means. When Kant stated that the value of human beings is above any price, had in mind not just a rhetorical effect, but an objective opinion about the place of humans in the order of things.
In short, ethics, according to the philosophical dictionary, is the theory or science of moral behavior of men in society. That is, the science of a particular form of human behavior.
Today, there is no point charge, then such thing as ethical politicians. We must start with ourselves, we are a little more ethical. Only then we will have a happiness policy - social. For besides being rational animals, we are (to live in society) political animals.

Human Nature

I'm always questioning about human nature. I wonder 'what' causes a man to do what they do? Destroy their own planet, generate inequities, increased crime, corruption and other atrocities.
Whenever this question comes in mind two theories of philosophers who marked their times: the English philosopher Hobbes (1588-1679) a student politician, who worked for the English monarchy, which believed that "... man is evil by nature ", he said the man power needs common to all, if not always in war, and that" ... the man is a wolf to man "(homo homini lupus), so it needs of society and its laws to discipline themselves. He sees society the salvation of man. Already the French philosopher Rousseau (1712-1778), one of the greatest figures of the French Enlightenment, ideological influences of the French Revolution, believed that "... man is born pure, and that corrupts society. "
It is the nature or society that is the big problem for humans? Which of these two realities is what creates the evil man? Or is that not one of them is the root of this evil? Which of the two philosophers are right? He who blames human nature, or one that places the company as causing the problem?
The idea of Rousseau, in which man is born pure, and from the development of society makes the individual is corrupt, because in a society there are always those that lie under and over others (the Hierarchy), and this evil organization society creates injustice and inequality as the fruits of this struggle of interests (for Marx, class struggle) generating cycles of addiction, corrupting the man (see the example of Brasilia). For Rousseau the goal of a corporation should ensure freedom, equality and justice for all, irrespective of the will of the majority.
But the company is made by men, men that theoretically, according to Rousseau, born pure, but they were also somehow corrupted. How did this happen? Maybe the idea of Hobbes is correct, that man is born inherently evil and socidade the shapes and softens its evil (with its laws). But if society shapes them, it enslaves this conduct free and natural man, then it corrupts. Evil against evil, creates more conflict, a negative balance.
If society is composed of men who are born pure, but it also corrupts other, trying to deliver them from the evil enslaving. This is a cycle of evil and not beneficial. Perhaps the theory of Yin - Yang is correct, there are some good and bad in everyone, just wanted to touch on what you choose. But do not forget that what is bad for you so I can be an asset, it is society that dictates the values and labels.

On Love

Here is one of the greatest virtues, commands, an ideal. Love is the raw material of the poets, the influence of love. It is the motivation of morality according to the philosopher Kant (1724-1804). If you consume beyond good and evil, for the philosopher Nietzsche (1844-1900). But what is this man of love? How does it come? What is he composed? What comes to love?
According to the Greek philosopher Plato (428/27-347 BC) "Love is the son of Penia, goddess of poverty and Poros, god of ability of acquisition of wealth. Poverty, because he constantly seeks, and wealth because it constantly gives ...". I accept this explanation about love and going beyond. I tell you, love is Eros (passion) and Logos (reason), together holding hands and walking the hills of human virtue. Many commented that "... passion and love are not the same things are completely different ...", but, I believe that passion is part of love, as well as the reason. Many must think "that's crazy, love is not rational ...", but it is rational, yes. Let's see how it works.
Eros (passion / desire) is always bound to something, the "desired thing", something to conquer, something that does not have, is venerated, if you wish. Desire is the moving cause of love, desire is always directed to what it lacks. Such a desire and such grace that characterize so essentially refer to things beautiful and good. Therefore, it creates a sense of what friendship is lacking. What it is lacking becomes invaluable, a Good or Fair. But as we all know this Good / Beautiful?
The Logos (reason / wisdom) is bound to know, love is an act of coercion, is the tendency to Good or Fair, because the know, and you know this, it satisfies and stimulates Eros (desire / passion) to act, get this Good / Belo that both want, what is needed. The Logos is to know the why of what makes good, gives you a sense of wanting to do, want, lack. The Logos is the wood to burn in the flame of passion is the fuel essential to produce the light of love.
Relate Eros (passion / desire) to the goddess of poverty Penia, to the maximum of Plato, since she is constantly asking, you need something, the "desired thing". It is poverty that knows no the need of something good and beautiful.
Logos (reason / wisdom) relate to the god of wealth Poros, the reason is because it gives you the ability to acquire, to acquire knowledge. To recognize and acquire the Good and the Beautiful.
Love, agreeing with the Greek philosopher Plato, is the son of poverty and wealth, and add that love is reason and passion in a loving conversation about the Good and the Beautiful, bringing the love to be intermediate, mediator between ignorance and wisdom, never totally ignorant, and never fully wisdom, but always seeking a greater knowledge and wealth of the Good and the Beautiful into a whole.

Naruto

From pre - teens, broadcast television in Brazil, brings to the small screen "anime" (Japanese cartoons). I remember the first I saw on TV, "The Star Patrol" that went extinct in the "Session Adventure" in the Globe. But soon, also the now defunct TV Headline, snacks at the small screen phenomenon Anime "Saint Seiya" (in which I was a big fan), where it became a national fever among youngsters.
Since then, the Anime invaded our screens, with Dragon Ball, Pokemon, Samurai X, Digimon, and now another phenomenon of Japanese kids, who appears on TV screens, I mean the Anime Naruto.
Animals as the "manga" (Japanese comics, which also became national fever) bring something different in their histories, beyond the fight between good versus evil, there are reports of strong personalities, and perseverance in the stories. Anime Naruto is no different.
This anime tells the story of a boy (Naruto) which became a Shinobi (ninja in Japanese), where all learning is very difficult for him. Always causing trouble, Naruto has a dream of becoming a Hokage (Master Shinobi of the village). He goes after her dream, facing various challenges and learning.
Besides the Anime show us struggles between good and evil, Naruto is an anime that gives a lot of learning to notice. Besides showing the importance of the studies (on Anime Shinobi small, face the classroom of the school ninja), he presents us with virtues, not often seen in most of our small world. The importance of being in a group and thus become strong to overcome any challenge.
Being in groups, the Anime Naruto teaches us to fight for an ideal, something that in our society no longer sees. The Shinobi always struggle in defense of an ideal or a rule in the village they live to fight and defend the BEM, for themselves and for all.
Friendship is one of the virtuoso at Anime fortissimo, and the characters gain new friends every day, they defend each other, never letting them back, shows us the fight for friendship.
More for me the highlight of Anime is the result of "perseverance," the characters of Naruto, never gives up his dreams of ideals, even at a disadvantage, combine forces to achieve what they want and, in fights and missions of each day, brings great teachings to them.
Anime Naruto, has the moral conduct, fighting for good, to achieve their dreams, the welfare of society, to protect an ideal and above all, teaches the viewer to never give up on the stated problem. And still shows on wise solutions to such problems.
Naruto is an anime that presents us with an ethic for where we should defend an ideal and strive for your dream, never give up. Anime has a great motto that Naruto character has always "... defending something, we become stronger, invincible ...".

Death pathways

All the days immediately before a holiday weekend, there are in all media campaigns related to traffic safety. I wonder, what does the number of traffic accidents grow so much? Lack of notice, lack of education, poor quality of roads or laws which are not governed and rigid?
There are numerous awareness campaigns in relation to traffic, this topic is fashion long ago, everyone knows that driving at high speed and / or alcohol are key factors in a risk of accidents, often fatal. We humans, we know very well that, and not take it any longer open the newspapers or see other media, news of fatal accidents in traffic.
What is wrong then? The regulatory agencies that are not fulfilling their roles, the law is not so rigid or so are still not complying with the law, because those who saw someone arrested for having taken the life of someone in traffic, for example, driving drunk? Or does the problem lies in the human being?
Human beings seem born to disobey the rules. Especially traffic you see this a lot, because who has not gone through a red light? If human beings do not break the rules and think and stand as a whole, we would not need laws and penalties for inferring them. It therefore seems, that "man is evil by nature," as the English philosopher Hobbes (1588-1679), but this is a topic for another text. The human being, ever think that this will never happen with you and, adding to the over-confidence, resulting in problematic traffic situation nationally.
Logical that all aspects mentioned in the first paragraph are factors which help to raise this issue but, in most cases, negligence is the greatest villain of this national problem for me has become a social problem.
The human being when he enters his vehicle, he thinks, is wrapped in armor, like the Middle Ages, and that nothing will ever achieve it, but do not think that this is within this supposedly imaginary and "armor" hit herself.
Everyone knows that alcohol and driving do not mix, but they are out there these "riders" with their "armor" armed and ready to reach their victims. The vehicle must be in the hands of a drunk becomes a weapon.
Lack of supervision but the law could be tightened, remove the vehicle from the hands of reckless drivers, as the "car" is a passion of the Brazilians, reaches its passion. perhaps the only way humans learn to understand better the situation. Governing laws, we have roads with better driving conditions, and the machismo of the driver (I quote here the men, because most accidents happen with them in the direction) is put aside, because overconfidence by adding high Speed is a serious imprudence.
Mr driver, you're not within a "armor."

Atheism Ludwig Feuerbach

1.1 The Human Consciousness and its Material Truth
The first chapter of Introduction (Einleitung) from The Essence of Christianity is titled The essence of man in general (Das Wesen des Menschen im Allgemeine) and opens with some reflections on religion as something that differentiates humans specifically in order to concludes that the (human essence) is the foundation and content of religion.
The method can be called Feuerbachian reduction. The anthropological reasons for this reduction, ie the argument that Feuerbach based on his remarks about the essence of man, which can be grouped around two fundamental ideas:
1) The identity of the subject (consciousness) and object, college or body and object. The reason is that the identity of the object is nothing more than the essence objectified. The object of human consciousness can not be more than the human essence. This identity involves, for Feuerbach, the highest perfection, that is, autonomy, self-sufficiency and infinite essence of each.
2) The concept of gender and human essence, which shows the identity of the object of consciousness and the object of religion. God is nothing more than the personification imaginary, fanciful representation of the human race as a person.
Identity between Subject and Object
The basic thesis in this regard is that the consciousness of the object is always self-consciousness, since the object is nothing but the very essence objectified. Feuerbach says, "But the object with which a subject relates essentially necessarily nothing more than the essence itself, the objective of this subject."
It is assumed in this statement that "man is nothing without an object" can not know or be self-conscious without an object, ie you must first is the parting expression or utterance (Entzweiung, Entdusserung), then the assumption of object, recognize themselves and come up with a new identity. Do not immediately reach the self, but only through the mediation of the object or objectification of the essence. Feuerbach says: "So the man takes consciousness of itself through the object: the object of consciousness is the consciousness that man has of himself."
To explain this relationship of identity between subject and object Feuerbach mentions the following model:
Great men, male specimens, which reveal the essence of man, confirmed this statement with your life. They had only one dominant fundamental passion: the achievement of the goal that was the essential goal of their activity.
Feuerbach, in effect, emphasizes both the subjectivity and the fact that the objects, whatever, both the spiritual and the sensible, are but the very essence objectified, which seems to deny all objectivity out of consciousness, the otherness of the object ahead to consciousness. Says:
Through the object if you know the man, it appears you its essence, the object is the essence revealed his true self, goal. And this is valid not only for spiritual objects, but also for the senses. S also the most distant objects are revelations of man's human essence, and because this and while they are objects for him. Also the moon, the sun and the stars scream gnot sauton, you know him (sic) yourself. Because he see them and see the way he sees them, all this is already a testimony to its very essence.
If this reasoning is understood only as an explanation and consequence of relationship self-knowledge, then does not necessarily mean a total denial of objectivity.
Precisely in the fact of being an object for consciousness is supposed objectivity. Moreover, as this relationship is to say only that in the objectivity of the object of consciousness, one becomes aware and emerges own subjectivity, self-consciousness. Feuerbach says, showing that she falls into a subjectivism absolute:
The fact that the objects, and because while man knows them, are mirrors of their essence, do not follow the unreality of the objects or the pure subjectivity of knowledge.
Although both the spiritual objects as sensitive are manifestations of the essence, exists between them in this respect, a difference; sensible objects are distinguished in consciousness, living beyond, while immediately coincide with the religious consciousness, has its existence only to it. Feuerbach says: "The sense object is outside of man, it is religious, and even intimate [...] is actually the closest, the closest."
The relationship between subject and object, however, that distinguishes the two as such, is reduced to one element: the subjective, despite the attempt to maintain objectivity Feuerbach. This identity that would follow from the cognitive process open and earner of new knowledge make it impossible to acquire new knowledge, because one can know only the objects that are objectivations the very essence, the predicates that are in it.
On this exclusive, ie that man is conscious only of himself, Feuerbach supports the infinity of consciousness and spirit. Consciousness without a strict sense (specifically human), which is the human essence, is the awareness of their own gender and of the essence, thus closing the circle of immediate identity.
The essence and consciousness, therefore, coincide limits are one of the other, and splits as well as coherent and without mediation, can not understand consciousness, properly speaking, no limit, or something external to it or to the essence.
The infinity is therefore unable to note the very limit, the essence of integrity, autonomy, self-sufficiency. The awareness is already by definition, in which the essence is the subject herself.
Given the total identity of essence and consciousness, it can not understand unless to itself, its essence, its subject is objectified essence, consciousness can not be more than self-consciousness. This total identity between consciousness and essence extends to all colleges; no college can transcend, be above, not even realizing it, the limits of the essence.
This identity forces applied to the constituents of the human essence (reason, heart, will) result in the impossibility of that, through them, one realizes that something is not the essence or who perceive its limits, leading to the subjectivity of the object, ie , reducing the object to the organ of perception.
Feuerbach, prolonging and deepening the critique of Hegel, the incompatibility of philosophy and religion, reason and faith.
Then, generalizing his criticism, denouncing the claim of Hegel to reduce to unity of spirit and matter, man, doing and the world, making back to the whole spirit of the real. The path followed so far by speculative philosophy, from abstract to concrete, from ideal to reality, is a way of nonsense. According to Feuerbach, being, by which philosophy begins, can not be separated from the consciousness or awareness of being.
Nature exists independent of consciousness outside of nature and man there is nothing but fantastic and deceptive representations.
The Hegelian system was thus reversed: where Hegel says "spirit," says Feuerbach "matter" where Hegel says, "God," Feuerbach said "man." It is not God that alienates the man is the man who is alienated in God.
Feuerbach summarizes his thinking on a formula that Marx resume verbatim in his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Place the predicate in place of the subject and the subject in place of the predicate. The being is the subject, the thought is the predicate, to say that the idea, according to Feuerbach, is a reflection of the world and not vice versa.
The effect of this statement, this inversion was wonderful on the Young Hegelians.
Undoubtedly, the work of Feuerbach is a milestone in the development of post-Hegelian. Until then, for example, the Young Hegelians, especially Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx, Hegel opposed to Christian theology, Feuerbach, by contrast, defines the philosophy of Hegel as Christian theology and deciphered by the dialectic, showing the close relationship between idealism and absolute religion, according to Feuerbach, if not abandoned the philosophy of Hegel, not to abandon theology.
The main thrust of Feuerbach is the idea of alienation.
The sale is for the man, considering the fact as a reality outside and above it, like a strange reality, which is actually his own work, the fruit of his creation.
In The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach defines the divestiture: the man makes the subjective, or does what only exists in his thought, in his representation in imagination something that exists outside of his thought, his representation, your imagination. Thus Christians tear the man's body spirit, soul and spirit make this a separate, private body, God. He adds, in his lesson VII, to characterize this reversal: deduce God's nature is as if to infer the image, copy the original, deduct one from the idea of this thing.
In view of Hegelian idealism all the material world is an alienation of the spirit. In Feuerbach, the transcendence of God is a sale, "the man projects his essence out of itself, the opposition of the divine human being is illusory opposition, all determinations are determinations of the divine being of human beings." In a word, it was not God who created man in his image, was the man who created in his image, his gods.
According to Hegel, Feuerbach says, man is an alienation from God. We must reverse the formula: God is an alienation of man. The man is the subject, God is the predicate. The man is not the individual, is the human race, and God is the ideal he projects beyond itself in the sky. This alienation is the result of the division of man himself. She is overcome by the knowledge that dissolves the transcendence of God, as in Hegel it melted the externality of the object.
The purpose of the story is so changed, for Hegel was the realization of God in man, for Feuerbach is the realization of man in man when he ceases to project onto God. Feuerbach's goal is to free the man of religion, realize the unity of man with man. It is this humanism that Feuerbach calls communism: the divided man of religion find again your drive in communism.
This philosophical communism is not connected with the struggle for the interests of the proletarian class, much less a radical transformation of bourgeois society: it tends only to be replaced in the consciousness of men, the traditional religion of humanism which says a materialist and atheist.
We are not there but a reversal of the Hegelian system. However, reinvesting the Hegelian system is not changing his list is to build a dogmatic materialism, symmetrical dogmatic idealism of Hegel. Hegel's ghost haunts the materialism of Feuerbach who is a naturalized Hegelianism. The dialectic that Hegel attributes to the absolute spirit is introduced here, under a dogmatic way, in nature. Metaphysics of Hegel becomes anthropology, and the real man is a religious man alienated.
This anthropology is, according to Feuerbach, the truth of religion. He fails to free itself from theology, is a justification for her man: the man, he said, is the human race, God is his ideal. The reconciliation of man with others in love is done humanism. Feuerbach thus replaced one religion for another, deifying love, a dialogue of I and TU.
1.1.1 The Infinite Consciousness
Feuerbach starts the first chapter of The Essence of Christianity with his famous quote: "Religion is based on the essential difference between man and animal, animals have no religion."
It is necessary, however, what constitutes the difference. Still are, Feuerbach: "But what is this essential difference between man and animal? The simple answer and most common, also the most popular to this question is: consciousness. "
According to Feuerbach, this essential difference is consciousness taken in the strict sense. At this point, has two kinds of consciousness, one's own human being, consciousness in the strict sense, and another that is also present in animals, without a broad sense.
The essential difference between man and animal is consciousness, but consciousness in the strict sense, because consciousness in the sense of self, capacity for understanding sensory perception and even of things outside of court as certain sensory characteristics, such a consciousness can not be denied to animals. Consciousness in the strict sense exists only when, for a being, object is its genre, its quiddity. In fact the animal is subject to himself as an individual, why does he feel himself, but not as a genre, so it lacks a conscience, whose name derives from knowledge. Where there is awareness of genres. In life we deal with individuals with gender in science. But only a being to which one's own gender, its quiddity becomes the object, the object may have the other things or beings according to their essential nature.
Consciousness in the broadest sense would be the sense of himself, sensory discrimination, which also characterizes the animals. According to Feuerbach, the animal may be an object for himself, not as a genre, but only as an individual. Consciousness, however, in the strict sense "exists only when, for a being, is subject to its genre, its quiddity."
For Feuerbach, in addition, awareness is related to a knowledge, which is clear from the words in Latin scire (to know), scientia (knowledge) and conscious (consciousness) and German between Wisen (which means to know and whose past participle is gewusst) and Bewusstsein.
So the animal has only a simple life, but one man is twofold: on the animal's life inside the outside, the man has an inner life and a pool. The inner life of man is life related to their gender, with its essence. The man thinks, he talks, talks to himself. The animal can not perform any function of gender thinking, speaking (because thinking and talking about gender roles are legitimate) without one another.
Man, unlike animals, has a double life, one indoor and one outdoor, due to their conscience. The inner life of man is life related to their gender, with its essence. He says: "Man is to himself while U.S. and TU, he can stand in the place of others just because their gender, their essence, not only his individuality, he is to object."
Firstly, Feuerbach wants to show that religion has as a precondition to consciousness in its specificity and, therefore, the human essence is the foundation (Grund) of religion. But beyond that, if consciousness is the ground of religion only in its human specificity, ie as an object has its own genre, that "the essence of man, in contrast with the animal, not just the foundation but also the object of religion ", for consciousness, as the founding of the religion, it takes the object itself, is self-awareness, awareness of the genre.
The first part of this proposition (the essence of humanity is the basis of religion) is clearly substantiated by the fact that religion is something distinctively human, and therefore must have its reason for being at the essence of man is based on specific human difference .
The second part (the human essence is the object of religion) it follows the first or best, way to understand consciousness as a specifically human, because only the awareness of gender, universal human essence and not only the individual being, is human consciousness itself. And thus the founding of the religion provides awareness at the same time that its object: the human essence. Thus, evidence is the basis and object of religion.
The essence of man, in contrast to the animal, not just the foundation but also the object of religion.
From this identity of the object of conscience and religion, Feuerbach forward with the object of replacing, without any loss to human by the divine essence, showing that it was stated that the infinity of the divine essence corresponds to the human essence. He says: "But religion and consciousness of the infinite, so it is not and can not be more than the consciousness that man has its essence not finite, not limited, but infinite."
If the human essence is not only the foundation but also the object of religion and is regarded as the conscience of the infinite, then the infinity that is said of religion, it appears the infinity of human essence. If the man was not the infinite, because its essence is the specific object and determines its consciousness.
There is, therefore, an identity between consciousness and essence (in the strict sense of awareness, specifically in the human sense and be aware of the essence, the human essence is made up of reflection about herself, the awareness of the essence). And so it can be stated that "the limit of essence is also the limit of consciousness." In this excerpt, Feuerbach compares man's consciousness to the caterpillar.
He said. There is a difference between conscience and instinct, the caterpillar (Roupe) has instincts, but not consciousness. Limited awareness, like the caterpillar, can not be called consciousness, because this implies infinity universality. He says: "Consciousness in the strict sense or self and consciousness are inseparable concepts of infinity" and then adds: "The consciousness of the infinite is nothing that awareness of the infinitude of consciousness. Or: the consciousness of infinity is the infinity of its very essence an object to the conscious. "
That consciousness in the strict sense, as awareness of the genre, Feuerbach argued that the principle as the basis of religion, it is now as awareness of the very essence of infinity, that is, in itself took the same religion. Religion served as a middle term in this syllogism, whose starting point was the conscience of man as distinctive; this starting point was phenomenologically evident thanks to religion. The religion was first given the badge of the man and only in search of the ground of religious behavior came to the consciousness.
So then, thanks to religion, we can define the content and infinite dimensions of consciousness, which were transferred from religion to consciousness and its object, the human essence.
Feuerbach is using arguments that present the same figure as historical fact in the development of the history of religious consciousness: religion is the first, albeit indirect, that is, through the consciousness of another (God), self-consciousness of man, that when is converted into direct consciousness disappears as a religion, because it is founded on the supposed separation between the core object (religion), and the essence (the object of consciousness), and overcome the separation, anthropology emerges as denial and assumption of religion.
This so far only assumed and asserted identity, which is shown by the interpretation of the history of religious consciousness, Feuerbach attempts to demonstrate, examining the subject-object relationship, consciousness-essence.

1.2 The Strangeness of Consciousness
Once you have tasted the full identity between consciousness and object, and therefore to exclude from consciousness anything other than self-awareness, following Feuerbach consequently showing that the desired object of religion is no longer the object of self-consciousness , ie the very essence of man. Therefore, it should ask for the identity of the object of consciousness with that of religion, as Feuerbach understood the essence of man, his relationship with gender, gender relations, individual, and how this object of consciousness can be had for religious object, this is God.
The essence of man is what constitutes the genre, the humanity in man, which means that man is man. The human essence is made up of reason, will and heart, these are the three perfections absolute essential constituents of the absolute essence of man. Feuerbach says, "But what then is the essence of man, of which he is conscious, or who performs the genre, the very humanity of man? The reason, at will, the heart. "
There are perfections that man has in abundance, but part of them and it is through them that man is defined; forces are constitutive elements or principles that animate and define it. These qualities are so perfect, that have in themselves the end of man, whose action, therefore, is always immanent. Feuerbach says, "But what is the purpose of reason? The reason. Love? Love. Will? The free will. Know to know, love to love, want to want, i. is. to be free. "
It is understood, then the total immanence or immediate identity and undifferentiated (exclusive subjectivist) because, given its absolute character, these perfections is not from the very beginning, determining any object or outside it, and it derives its infinity and municipality.
These forces are essential, because through them the essence of man, transcending individuals, driving them beyond the limits of its finitude: the ratio tends to the indefinite continuation of the reflection, the ethical will is, in itself, and the power of unconditional feeling breaks all boundaries in the act of giving full. It is therefore through these forces that impel the individual besides yourself, that carries the essence of man as a species.
The reason, desire and love are the perfections, force, of which the individual participates, as if perfection or substantialized hypostatizes, universal and infinite constituent of man's being, but higher above the individual achievement of them. His achievement takes place in the genre.
The individual, in turn, is limited and must be recognized and feel as such, qualitative difference in the gender front. Exactly the kind of consciousness or essence, which has the status of infinity is that the individual becomes aware of its limitation and finitude. This awareness of their own limitations by the individual against the genre, is its specific difference against the animal.
The consideration of the human essence as infinite, and thus substitute for God, and the essence of the genre appear similar, lying within the plane of infinity, while the individual is in terms of finitude. The essence of man is the generic essence, which certainly is the absolute essence of the individual but does not identify with him. The individual has no essence in itself, but in the genre, the genre is the essence of the individual. It states: "The natural man does not in itself has in it the ess6encia man neither as a moral being, not as thinking being. The ess6encia of man is contained only in community, in the unity of man with man. "
The identity and essence of consciousness, lies therefore in the generic plan, then it was the man, not its concretion in the finite individual, considered himself the human being as a generic and not individually, or as is reasonable in extent that it can perform generic functions.
Just as when considering the relationship consciousness-essence stated the identity, so when considering the relationship between individual and essence or gender, is said to qualitative difference. The lack of difference is the actual origin of the idea of God. The individual, by ignoring gender, hypostasizes infinity of qualities peculiar to the genre, the object of his consciousness, like God, imagines the genre with an individual, deifying him because to grant it the infinity of the genre itself.
Based, therefore, the religious alienation on the one hand, the very structure of consciousness and, secondly, the tension between individual and species would entail. Firstly, the man is conscious of itself, that is, he is able to make their own essence as the object of his consciousness. The objective consciousness, while awareness of the object is assumed, constitutionally, the difference between self and object. However, in the case, the self is experienced as finite, marked by many boundaries, that is, the finite self as an individual, is experienced in its existential facticity, infinitely different from what it can be.
Thus, human consciousness emerges in the fundamental tension between the self (the individual, limited and finite) and kind man (infinity that transcends all boundaries).
The infinite possibility, which is man, which makes him an indefinite task, is updated by a projection, a being distinct from man, then why, for Feuerbach, "the man converts his God, what he wants to be or as the man thinking, as is intended, so is his God. " God is simply the man released the limits that constrain the existence of individuals. Is reversed, thus the milling biblical "God created man in His own image" (Genesis 1:27) because, according to Feuerbach, "the first man created God, not knowing and wanting, according to his image."

1.3 God's Image and Likeness of Man
The thinker of Landshut, as a consequence of reducing the object to the subject (the essence of consciousness), operates a reduction of the divine predicates to its basic elements, the human predicates, and the assignment to their true human subject, resulting in the alleged divine essence is only human. Feuerbach does not, therefore, predicates, but only its elusive subject.
Feuerbach, in order to demonstrate that the divine essence is nothing more than human, preserves the predicates of the divine essence and attributes to the real subject, the human essence. Consider God as the subject is the fundamental illusion of religion. Nega therefore predicates attributed to God, leading to an outright negation of the subject-god, since in his view, "the negation of the predicates is therefore the negation of the subject." States that "if the predicates are divine qualities of the human essence, also the subject belongs to the same human essence."
The predicates enjoy facing the subject of autonomy and independent existence, having value and meaning in themselves and not by their application to a subject. Feuerbach says: "And in no way a negation of the subject is also necessarily the negation of the predicate itself. The predicates have a meaning of its own, autonomous. "
The subject is determined by the predicates, which are the determinants. The relationship is only unilateral, and in no time, Feuerbach shows that the predicates are affected by the allocation to a subject.
Therefore, the concept of self depends entirely on its determination. In the case of God, the predicates are not divine by their membership or references intrinsic to God, are attributed to him, because in themselves are divine. He says: "Not the quality of divinity, the deity but the quality is the first true essence of God. So, all the theology and philosophy until now considered as God, absolutely essential, not God. "
He adds:
Goodness, justice, wisdom chimeras are not so because of the existence of God is a chimera, or truths by the fact that this is true. The concept of God is dependent on the concept of justice, goodness, wisdom, a God who is not good, not fair, is not wise, not God, but not vice versa. Quality is not divine because God possess it, but God has the divine because she is in and of itself, because without it God would be an imperfect being.
The concept of God depends, therefore, the determinations and qualities that apply to you, and not vice versa, because "the need of the subject is just in need of the predicate."
Says:
With respect to the predicates, ie, attributes or properties of God that is accepted without discussion, but not concerning the subject, ie, the fundamental essence of these predicates. The denial of the subject is taken by irreligion, of atheism, but not the negation of the predicates [...]. Undo all qualities is the same as removing the very essence. A being without qualities is a being without being a objectively and without objectivity is a be invalid. So when the man cut all the quality of God is this God for it just be a negative.
Thus, the denial of the subject does not imply the negation of predicates implies the negation of the subject. This proposition must be understood in Feuerbach's intention to retain the divine predicates and apply them to the real subject (the human race) and denying them the elusive subject (God). Predicates assigned to the divine essence belongs, in fact, the human essence. Give it a replacement of the subject, the man taking the place of God.
The consideration of predicates that aims to show what man says God actually says about himself. Thus, it can mean nothing The essence of Christianity as a refund of theological language predicamental the man when he came to the conclusion that theology is anthropology. Feuerbach says:
Only then can a true unity, satisfied itself of the divine essence with the human, the unity of human essence with itself, so only when, then we no longer have a philosophy of religion or theology different from psychology or anthropology, but when recognize one's own theology as anthropology.
The predicates attributed to God are human generic determinations. The concept of deity coincides with that of mankind.


1FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.46. Afirma Feuerbach também: e aqui vale sem restrição o princípio; o objeto do homem nada mais é que a sua própria essência objetivada, p. 55.
2FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p. 46.
3FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p. 46.
4FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p. 46.
5FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p. 46.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.55.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.55.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.41.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.41.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p. 43.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p. 43.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p. 44.
FEUER FEUERBACH, L. op., cit.,p. 44.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.44
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.44
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.44.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.44.
FEUERBACH, L. op,. cit., p.45.
ou coração – cf. A essência do cristianismo, p.111.
FEUERBACH, L. Princípios da filosofia do futuro e outros escritos. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1989, p. 59.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.55.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.158.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.61.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.66.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit.,p.63.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit.,p.63.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit.,p.64.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.61.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.57.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.271.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.64. É interessante notar que originariamente o termo theós (deus) era utilizado como nome predicativo. No sentido em grego clássico.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.64.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.158.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.64.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.59.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.41.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.56.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.212.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.55.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.56.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.56.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.56.
FEUERBACH, L. A essência do cristianismo. Campinas: Papirus, 1988, p.239.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.77.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.68.
FEUERBACH, L. op. cit., p.68.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.56-57.
FEUERBACH, L. op., cit., p.56.

Fate...

Fate, I always wondered about this, is there one? Faced with the deaths, some come with that phrase "is (or was) his destiny ...", or something like that," God wanted it that way. " This sounds somewhat superstitious, mythological.
I never agreed with the excuse of fate, it was he who gave the reins of the course of things, or that it was a given that God wanted, we were this plaything. First comes to mind the philosopher St. Augustine (354-430 AD) and the theological doctrine it the 'free will', where this second man is free to choose their actions. According to the philosopher who was eventually canonized, God does not give the reins, but transferring this responsibility to the men, and after this God will judge these human actions.
About the Fate, put the same theory of St. Augustine, man is free to choose their actions. If not for fate determination, we are slaves of nature. We are not free to choose the fate in store for us all. We have no choice.
When there's something strange happens in your life, ever heard someone comment, "was the work of fate," when someone knows where there is a chemical relationship, we heard another phrase, "a thing of destiny." Or this, when someone dies, that phrase always comes to comfort, "was that God wanted it that way."
All agree that a murderer is a criminal, right! Now comes this reasoning: if an individual takes another's life, it can not be considered a murderer. For if the death of that individual is, his fate to die that way, or if, God wanted it that way, the killer would not be criminal, but as an instrument of fate or God, as they trace their purpose to your life. He is not a sinner or a criminal before the law, if we were manipulated by something metaphysical.
In nature there is a law that can explain how nature governs. "In every action there is a reaction." That is how life has evolved and continues to evolve, it can also be called the dialectic, which correspond to three data: thesis (share) versus antithesis (reaction) resulting in a synthesis (which is nothing but a resulting action) and so on. So many philosophers and historians see the history and evolution of nature.
Once the nature governing its dominion over the universe, and not a destiny or a certain God who manipulates nature. Then we can begin to acquit all criminals because they were instruments of fate or a particular mythological being. It would be a good excuse to solve the prison problem in the country.

Atheism, thus breaking with mythology comes to science

Before the birth of philosophy, and by this means the science, the whole question of man over nature was answered by different religions. These explanations were passed from generation to generation through myths. A myth is a story of gods and aims to explain life and the world as it is.
For millennia, spread by a variety of world mythological explanations for philosophical questions. The early Greek philosophers attempted to prove that such explanations were not credible. There appears atheism.
The early Greek philosophers were critical of the mythology to the gods they represented, were very similar to men. For the first time in human history, was told clearly that the myths might not pass the fruits of man's imagination. Xenophanes (Greek philosopher, 570 BC), said that people have created gods in his image and likeness: "Mortals believe that gods are born, speak, similar to their own ... If the cows, horses or lions had consciousness and could play like men, they would create their gods in his image and likeness. "
At that time in ancient Greece, the thought gave her leap of evolution in a way linked to the myth for one thinking built on experience and reason. The aim of the early Greek philosophers was to find natural explanations for the process of nature.
Thus began the scientific quest (birth of science) behind the basic substance for the creation of life. So coming to an atom. Since then science has been putting mythology (religion) to the margin of existence, there where science has not yet arrived. In 1860, Darwin's natural selection with his puts in evidence the influence of divine life.
In the twentieth century European thinkers, put an end to the last gasp of religion on God's influence on humans. The German philosopher Feuerbach (1804-1872), reduces religion to anthropology, he departed from the experience of Christianity of his time to warn against the illusion that this was causing to the people. Says the idea of God originates in the feeling of dependence of man from nature, whose forces the scare. Christianity proposes the relationship between God and man. Feuerbach interprets this relationship as a dependency so it makes the choice of either God or man, for it reduces theology to anthropology, bringing the man himself to God to man.
Already Marx (1818-1883) intended to transform the critique of religion in this critique of politics, saying that any manifestation of religion alienates would be generated by economic alienation, so Marx's critique of religion and for him "... Religion is the opium of the people. "
Nietzsche (1844-1900) announces the death of God as a "good news" for the evolution of man, because it means permission for life to the world for the future. Just so the man could become the "Superman".
Freud (1856 - 1939), says that God is a necessity paternal child that man possesses, if no stern gaze and guard, the man can not walk.
Thus thinking atheist making the break from the mythology, science takes its place, showing that there is a rational explanation for things, without appealing to the metaphysical, and that for a simple pain-headed, no need to invoke the gods, just take an aspirin.