Ouça este conteúdo
Exposing our world view, as the Gazeta do Povo does now, is to some extent a demonstration that we believe in the ability of the human being, through the use of intelligence, to reach reality, albeit imperfectly and incompletely.
It is a bold assertion, in times of so much doubt about the power of reason, of so much distrust of man's cognitive capacity. If in all ages there have been thinkers who have raised the banner of this skepticism, the last two centuries have seen this tendency soar to the point that it has conquered many of the most brilliant philosophers of this period. There are many reasons for this disbelief, but we still prefer to join those thinkers who, despite all difficulties, have not been discouraged by the force of reason, convinced that a thousand obstacles do not necessarily create doubt.
"If there are no objective truths, there is room for voluntarism"
But how does this disbelief manifest itself? Does it really exist? It might look like it doesn't exist. After all, people, philosophers, scientists, businessmen and public men continue living and making use of intelligence and reason. It is true. There are only a few that are completely skeptical about the power of human cognitive resources. However this skepticism exists, it is widespread and it lies mostly in the capacity of reason being the door for understanding what is most important to men. Understanding and guiding our decisions. According to the Scottish-american philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, nowadays there is "a widespread cynicism in our culture about power or even about the relevance of the rational argument on questions considered fundamental". Meaning that, when it comes to the more decisive questions of men – destiny, happiness, purpose of life in society – there is an incredulity about the ability of reason actually having anything to say. Postmodern Philosophy, authored by eminent thinkers such as Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard, was meant to tear down any claims of the existence of objective truths. In postmodern culture and environment, which are not to be confused necessarily with the thoughts of those authors, being persuasive came to be more important than being right – in part because without objective truth, no one could consider being right about anything. MacIntyre’s assessment is accurate: "The arguments, it has to be said, came to be understood in some circles, not as expressions of rationality, but as weapons, expository techniques that make up a key part of the professional skills of lawyers, academics, economists and journalists. And through them, they dominate those who aren't fluent or don't have dialectical fluency or articulation ". This isn't our view on the power of reason.
Decartes, from the early days of modern philosophy, brought to the world the illusion that men would be capable of understanding reality in its wholeness, from its most remote causes to its most unforeseeable consequences. The frustration of this pretense, in the following centuries, gave way to its opposite: a widespread relativism that, in its postmodern formulation, hides a self-destructive contradiction, since the claim of the inexistence of objective truth is imposed as objective truth itself, as what we are trying to deny. It is not always easy to notice this incoherence, but ignoring it leads to relativism permeating society, with all its consequences. If there is no objective truth, a central core of principles that cannot be subjected to relativism, voluntarism manifests itself individually – choices such as world views, what is essential to men and values become a matter of non-rational decision making, unsusceptible of being shared via argumentation – and voluntarisms manifests itself collectively, when the majority´s intention is established as “truth” or as direction for life, without space to safeguard fundamental minorities rights, that need to be outside of the dictatorship of the majority.
"We prefer to join those thinkers who were not discouraged by the power of reason"
To the conviction that a man is capable of attaining truth, follows the belief that’s he is capable of receiving and sharing it. Revealing and proposing what it is believed shows a clear sign of respect for others and for the other’s intelligence. If the willingness to debate goes hand in hand with respect to the autonomy of the others (which is based, therefore, the strong conviction that the dignity of man requires that the search for truth and guidance of one's life would be obtained through their own efforts and never prescribed from outside) and with the willingness to rectify when one perceives the mistake, it will be possible to avoid several traps derived from the relativistic voluntarism, such as the intolerance against ideas that are out of fashion – in other words – the politically correct oppression. The rise, also among university community, in ”micro-aggression” is the proof that this oppression is reaching a level in which even the very same environment that should instigate discussion and search for the truth is closing itself to this possibility.
The great questions of humanity, of course, cannot be resolved in a matter of minutes. Some of them have consumed entire lives of philosophical labor and centuries of debate. But the complexity of reality should not serve to discourage anyone who indulges in this quest. Reality is complex, inexhaustible, but not unattainable.
