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!
sexta-feira, 7 de maio de 2010
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
.jpg)
