O presente trabalho em tela busca se debruçar nas relações e interconexões entre etnocentrismo, xenofobia e medo. Entretanto, o medo é medo de alguma coisa ou de alguém. Talvez do nada. Porém, quando nos deparamos com o medo, pensamentos e práticas etnocêntricas e xenofóbicas, a literatura demonstra que há processos ligados a mecanismos de pulsão, repressão e recalque, pois o medo está como pano de fundo, causando um desencadeamento de emoções e sentimentos de um sujeito frente ao outro. Então, quando (...) dois indivíduos se encontram, há um conflito interno por questões culturais e de objetificação entre ambos. Desse modo, o conflito não é apenas pessoal ou individual, mas fundado em estruturas e formação cultural. Portanto, quando dois indivíduos distintos se encontram, também são duas culturas se defrontando. Com isso, podem ocorrer pensamentos e práticas etnocêntricas e xenofóbicas oriundas do medo, de se estar diante do outro, do diferente, do desconhecido e que não sou eu. Assim, com o medo colocado, aparece o conflito, a angústia, o repúdio e a negação do outro. E daí já se evidencia o etnocentrismo e a xenofobia. Porém, o impulso é o recalque que se reprime por medo do outro, do diferente e do desconhecido. Logo, Etnocentrismo, Xenofobia e Medo: Pulsão, Repressão e Recalque como Medo oculto do outro, do desconhecido, do diferente e do diverso, talvez tal fato só apaziguemos com um olhar com análises relativizadoras, tanto das culturas como dos outros, pois talvez assim se possa encontrar a saída de tais neuroses. A pesquisa adentra pelas teorias da Antropologia e com suportes de campos da Psicologia, História, Psicanálises e Sociologia. Desse modo, a pesquisa não abarca apenas o caráter bibliográfico e de revisão da literatura, mas também adentra sutilmente pelos caminhos da “observação e descrição” do fato e fenômeno histórico-social, fazendo assim certo esforço de “explorá-lo e explicá-lo” pelas teorias de base, que suportam o construto. (shrink)

In this book I show that science suffers from a damaging but rarely noticed methodological disease, which I call rationalistic neurosis. It is not just the natural sciences which suffer from this condition. The contagion has spread to the social sciences, to philosophy, to the humanities more generally, and to education. The whole academic enterprise, indeed, suffers from versions of the disease. It has extraordinarily damaging long-term consequences. For it has the effect of preventing us from developing traditions and institutions (...) of learning rationally devoted to helping us learn how to make progress towards a wiser, more civilized world. On our fragile earth, overcrowded, fraught with injustice, inequality and conflict, menaced by unprecedented and terrifying technological and industrial means for change and destruction, we urgently need to acquire a little more wisdom and civilization if we are to avoid repeating horrors of the kind suffered by so many during the 20th century (and already suffered by many in the first few years of the 21st century). We can ill afford to have in our hands instruments of learning botched and bungled from the standpoint of helping us learn how to live more wisely. It may seem scarcely credible that something as important as our institutions of learning can suffer from wholesale, structural defects. Why has this not been noticed before? Why have not armies of scientists and scholars appreciated the point and, long ago, put the matter right? The answer will emerge as my argument unfolds. I will show that one of the most damaging features of rationalistic neurosis is that it has built-in methodological and institutional mechanisms which effectively conceal that anything is wrong. But there is also an immediately obvious reason: specialization, and the resulting fragmentation of academia, has resulted in a situation in which hardly anyone takes responsibility for the overall ideals, the overall aims and methods, of academic inquiry. Academics, these days, are specialists, furiously trying to keep abreast of developments in their own specialist fields. They have no time, and no inducement, to lift their eyes from their particular disciplines, and look at the whole endeavour. Science has long been under attack, at least since the Romantic movement. Blake objected to “Single vision & Newton’s sleep” and declared that “Art is the Tree of Life... Science is the Tree of Death”. Keats lamented that science will “clip an Angel’s wings” and “unweave a rainbow”. Whereas the Enlightenment had valued science and reason as tools for the liberation of humanity, Romanticism found science and reason oppressive and destructive, and instead valued art, imagination, inspiration, individual genius, emotional and motivational honesty rather than careful attention to objective fact. Much subsequent opposition to science stems from, or echoes, the Romantic opposition of Blake, Wordsworth, Keats and many others. There is the movement Isaiah Berlin has described as the “Counter-Enlightenment” (Berlin, 1979, ch. 1). There is existentialism, with its denunciation of the tyranny of reason, its passionate affirmation of the value and centrality of irrationality in human life, from Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to Heidegger and Sartre (see, for example, Barrett, 1962). There is the attack on Enlightenment ideals concerning science and reason undertaken by the Frankfurt school, by postmodernists and others, from Horkheimer and Adorno to Lyotard, Foucault, Habermas, Derrida, MacIntyre and Rorty (see Gascardi, 1999). The soul-destroying consequences of valuing science and reason too highly is a persistent theme in literature: it is to be found in the works of writers such as D.H. Lawrence, Doris Lessing, Max Frisch, Y. Zamyatin. There is persistent opposition to modern science and technology, and to scientific rationality, often associated with the Romantic wing of the green movement, and given expression in such popular books as Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, Roszak’s Where the Wasteland Ends, Berman’s The Reenchantment of the World and Appleyard’s Understanding the Present. There is the feminist critique of science and conceptions of science: see, for example, Fox Keller (1984) and Harding (1986). And there are the corrosive implications of the so-called “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge, and of the work of social constructivist historians of science, which depict scientific knowledge as a belief system alongside many other such conflicting systems, having no more right to claim to constitute knowledge of the truth than these rivals, the scientific view of the world being no more than an elaborate myth, a social construct (see Barnes and Bloor, 1981; Bloor, 1991; Barnes, Bloor and Henry, 1996; Shapin and Schaffer, 1985; Shapin, 1994; Pickering, 1984; Latour, 1987). This latter literature has provoked a counter-attack by scientists, historians and philosophers of science seeking to defend science and traditional conceptions of scientific rationality: see Gross and Levitt (1994), Gross, Levitt and Lewis (1996), and Koertge (1998). This debate between critics and defenders of science came abruptly to public attention with the publication of Alan Sokal’s brilliant hoax article ‘Transgressing the boundaries’ in a special issue of the cultural studies journal Social Text in 1996 entitled Science Wars: see Sokal and Bricmont (1998). What does this book have to contribute, given the above avalanche of criticism of science? The criticisms of science developed in this book are diametrically opposed to the above, in so far as the above criticisms oppose scientific rationality, seek to diminish or restrict its influence, or hold that it is unattainable. My central point is that we suffer, not from too much scientific rationality, but from not enough. What is generally taken to constitute scientific rationality is actually nothing of the kind. It is rationalistic neurosis, a characteristic, influential and damaging kind of irrationality masquerading as rationality. Science is damaged by being trapped within a widely upheld but severely defective philosophy of science; free science from this defective philosophy, provide it with a more intellectually rigorous philosophy, and it will flourish in both intellectual and humanitarian terms. And more generally, as we shall see, academic inquiry as a whole is damaged by being trapped within an intellectually defective philosophy of inquiry; free it from this defective philosophy, from its rationalistic neurosis, and it will flourish in intellectual and human terms. It is not reason that is damaging, but defective pretensions to reason — rationalistic neurosis —masquerading as reason. Thus what I seek to do here is the exact opposite of what all those who oppose science and scientific rationality do. I shall argue that Reason, the authentic article, arrived at by generalizing the progress-achieving methods of science, can have profoundly liberating and enriching consequences for all worthwhile, problematic aspects of life, and thus deserves to enter into every aspect of life. The bare bones of the argument of this book can be stated quite simply like this. Science cannot proceed without making the substantial metaphysical assumption that the universe is physically comprehensible (to some extent at least). But this conflicts with the orthodox view that in science everything is assessed impartially with respect to evidence, nothing being permanently assumed independently of evidence. So the metaphysical assumption of comprehensibility is repressed. Science pretends that no such assumption is made. But this damages science. For the assumption is substantial, influential and highly problematic. It needs to be made explicit within science so that it can be critically scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and considered. Pretending the assumption is not being made undermines the intellectual rigour of science, its intellectual value and success. And it does not stop there. For science also makes value assumptions. Quite properly, science is concerned to discover that which is of value. New factual knowledge devoid of all value (whether intellectual or practical) does not contribute to science. But the orthodox view of science holds that values have no place within science. As in the case of metaphysics, here too, science pretends that values have no role to play within the intellectual domain of science. And this damages science. For values are, if anything, even more influential and problematic than metaphysics (in influencing the direction of research). Here too, values need to be made explicit within science so that they can be scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and assessed. Pretending that values play no role within the intellectual domain damages science; both the intellectual and the practical aspects of science are adversely affected. Science fails to pursue those avenues of research that lie in the best interests of humanity. And it goes further. Science is pursued in a social, cultural, economic and political context. It is a part of various social, economic and political projects which seek to achieve diverse human objectives. But the idea that science is an integral part of humanitarian or political enterprises with political ends clashes, once again, with the official view of science that the aim of science is to improve factual knowledge. The political objectives of science are repressed. And, once again, this damages science. For, of course, the political objectives of science, like all our political objectives, are profoundly problematic. These need to be made explicit so that they can be scrutinized, so that alternatives can be developed and considered. The pretence that science does not have this political dimension once again undermines the intellectual rigour of science, and its human value. It lays science open to becoming a part of economic, corporate and political enterprises that are not in the best interests of humanity. The upshot of the line of argument just indicated is that we need to bring about a revolution in the aims and methods of science, and of academic inquiry more generally. Natural science needs to change; its relationship with the rest of academic inquiry, with social inquiry and the humanities, needs to change; and most importantly and dramatically, academic inquiry as a whole needs to change. The basic task of the academic enterprise needs to become to help humanity learn how to tackle its problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways than at present. We need to put the intellectual tasks of articulating our problems of living, and proposing and critically assessing possible solutions, possible and actual actions, at the heart of academic inquiry. The basic task needs to be to help humanity learn a bit more wisdom – wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom including knowledge and technological know-how, but much else besides. Natural science, despite its flaws, has massively increased our knowledge and technological know-how. This in turn has led to a massive and sometimes terrifying increase in our power to act. Often this unprecedented power to act is used for human good, as in medicine or agriculture. But it is also used to cause harm, whether unintentionally (initially at least) as when industrialization and modern agriculture lead to global warming, destruction of natural habitats and rapid extinction of species, or intentionally, as when the technology of war is used by governments and terrorists to maim and kill. Before the advent of modern science, when we lacked the means to do too much damage to ourselves and the planet, lack of wisdom did not matter too much. Now, with our unprecedented powers to act, bequeathed to us by science, lack of wisdom has become a menace. This is the crisis behind all the other current global crises: science without wisdom. In these circumstances, to continue to pursue knowledge and technological know-how dissociated from a more fundamental quest for wisdom can only deepen the crisis. As a matter of urgency, we need to free science and academia of their neuroses; we need to bring about a revolution in the academic enterprise so that the basic aim becomes to promote wisdom by intellectual and educational means. At present science and the humanities betray both reason and humanity. The argument of this book, which I have just summarized, begins with a discussion of the philosophical and methodological problems that beset theoretical physics. At once, many of those who are concerned about moral, political and environmental issues that plague our world today, will feel impatient. What have the methodological problems of theoretical physics to do with third world poverty, war and the threat of war, pollution, extinction of species, the menace of conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear armaments? I can only plead with such a reader: patience. The root cause of the sickness of our times does indeed lie, I claim, with a methodological sickness of natural science or, even more specifically, of physical science. What makes the modern world so utterly different from all previous ages is our possession of modern science and technology. This is the instrument that has changed the conditions of human life almost beyond all recognition, and put unprecedented, and sometimes terrifying, powers into our hands. One should not dismiss out of hand the suggestion that a part of our problem may lie with this instrument, this engine, of rapid change. We see, here, too, the way in which intellectual specialization, referred to above, has effectively concealed from view the nature and extent of the problem that confronts us. The argument that I shall develop in what follows begins with physics, with problems concerning the aims and methods of physics. But it then leaps to social science, to philosophy, to the humanities, to education, to psychotherapy, and to politics: in the end there is scarcely an aspect of modern life that is not touched and, potentially, affected by the argument. How many academic experts are prepared to follow, to take seriously, an argument that ranges so recklessly across such a wide range of academic disciplines? How many non-academic non-experts? But just this is what the argument and message of this book requires. I hope that the reader will endure with patience the somewhat esoteric discussion concerning the aims and methods of physics pursued in chapter one. This may not seem to have anything much to do with the urgent problems of our times, but it does. This is in part how the intellectual disaster I seek to expose in this book conceals itself from view: it buries itself in the obscure, recondite field of the philosophy of physics. Those who devote their lives to the philosophy of physics are, by and large, too myopic to see how their specialized field of study has anything to do with the great and dreadful humanitarian problems and disasters of our age; and those who are above all concerned with these humanitarian disasters have no time at all for abstruse issues concerning the aims and methods of physics. And so the connection is never made. As it happens, the methodological neurosis of physics, with which we begin in chapter one, is actually a quite simple matter to grasp. It does not require any real knowledge of physics to understand. Indeed, physicists and philosophers of physics are much more likely to find the argument difficult to follow than are non-experts. We non-scientists can stand back and see the whole wood; scientists, trained to think in terms of the current orthodox conception of science, trapped in the thickets of research, will find this much harder to do. In an attempt to take this peculiar circumstance into account, I have arranged the exposition as follows. In chapter one I give a simple exposition of the case for declaring natural science to suffer from what I call "rationalistic neurosis"; this avoids all technicalities, and goes straight to the heart of the matter. In the appendix I tackle a host of more technical objections that may be made to the elementary argument of chapter one. So, those experts in the fields of the philosophy of physics and philosophy of science who find the argument of chapter one naïve and unconvincing, should consult the appendix before tossing the book away in disgust. I write in the hope that there will be a few who will not dismiss out of hand the suggestion that the question of how we are to go about learning how to live in wiser and more civilized ways might have something to learn from scientific learning, and will take the trouble to pursue the line of argument traced out in this book. I write in the hope that these few will grasp just how desperate our situation is, how urgent the need to change the status quo, and will do everything in their power to alert others to the need to heal the methodological sickness from which our institutions and traditions of learning at present suffer. To begin with, we need a campaigning organization, modelled perhaps on "Friends of the Earth", which might be called something like "Friends of Wisdom". (shrink)

Proponho uma cosmovisão especial cujo ponto de partida é a teoria sobre o duplo tipo de conhecimento que os seres humanos possuem: o primeiro é o conceitual (que também chamaremos categorial ou abstrativo) e o segundo é o holístico. Com o primeiro tipo de conhecimento (conceitual), o indivíduo impõe suas próprias categorias (também chamadas formas, estruturas ou Gestalt2 ) aos dados que recebe através dos sentidos. Quando ele sabe por dentro, mediante essa primeira modalidade, o que ela realmente faz é (...) interpretar a realidade. Em contrapartida, com conhecimento holístico (também chamado de intuitivo), o sujeito consegue se desfazer (mesmo parcialmente) de suas próprias categorias e consegue um vislumbre do ser e da verdade. A verdade consiste nesse desvelamento do ser, que tem sido escondido por nossas próprias categorias cognitivas. A partir daqui podemos inferir algumas ideias típicas nesta cosmovisão integradora. a) A Filosofia consiste em um tipo de lente através da qual cada assunto imprime uma cor, um valor, uma estruturação especial (positiva ou negativa) para as coisas, pessoas e as situações que elas vivem. Isso é explicado com a teoria da matéria e a forma do conhecimento (que é uma aplicação de hilemorfismo, já explicado em Aristóteles): o assunto são os dados recebidos do lado de fora; a forma é a estrutura (lente) que o sujeito aplica sem perceber. O fenômeno percebido é a fusão desses dois elementos, e assim portanto, já contém a coloração aplicada pelo sujeito. Dessa forma, o ato de conhecer se torna no ato de interpretar os objetos ao seu redor de acordo com suas próprias lentes, que ele adquiriu ao longo de sua vida, com educação, ambiente e os padrões que recebeu. Cada indivíduo geralmente cai na ilusão de possuir a verdade definitiva. E, portanto, quando outros julgam as coisas de outra maneira, conclui que elas estão erradas, sem perceber o efeito de individualização que tem seu próprio mecanismo cognitivo. O estudo da Filosofia nos inicia nessa consciência sobre a qualidade interpretativa do nosso aparelho cognitivo. b) O conhecimento holístico ou intuição é alcançado quando um sujeito abdica, mesmo parcial e temporalmente, das próprias estruturas e categorias que normalmente usa em seu conhecimento conceitual. Podemos mencionar cinco grandes tipos de intuição: empatia, a experiência estética, a experiência axiológica, a experiência mística e a experiência criativa. A empatia consiste em capturar as categorias usadas por um interlocutor. Isso é possível quando dispensamos nossas próprias categorias e "nos colocamos nos sapatos do outro”. A experiência estética consiste em captar a harmonia intrínseca de um objeto. Isso é possível quando nos despojamos de nossas próprias lentes, que de alguma forma desfiguram a realidade presente. A experiência axiológica consiste em capturar os valores intrínsecos do objeto que se tem oposto. É semelhante à experiência estética, mas em um nível mais geral, porque não apenas o valor da beleza é percebido, mas também outros valores, como a verdade, bondade, virtude, etc. A experiência mística consiste em perceber novas soluções, novos relacionamentos, nova síntese de elementos previamente conhecidos. c) Cada indivíduo gera sua cosmovisão pessoal de acordo com as categorias (formas ou Gestalten) que gradualmente acumula ao longo de sua vida. Nessa visão de mundo, são instalados diversos valores, princípios, padrões éticos, padrões de conduta e outros elementos que caracterizam cada indivíduo. O realismo, idealismo, teocentrismo, pessimismo, a luta contra a alienação e o estabelecimento da própria liberdade são o resultado das formas assimiladas. Todo mundo vê as coisas e as pessoas com suas próprias lentes. A Filosofia proposta aqui explica essa diversidade de posições diante do mundo; é uma nova lente que vislumbra o efeito interpretativo de todas as lentes cognitivas; é uma lente integradora das outras posturas. Quem se tornar um adepto desta filosofia, torna-se mais tolerante e compreensivo com respeito as diferenças resolvidas pelos outros. Na realidade não há inimigos, apenas diversidade de pontos de vista. Essa é a Filosofia integradora proposta aqui. d) Uma das principais consequências de tudo isso é a tese de que: "de acordo com sua filosofia, assim será sua felicidade". De fato, existem certos conceitos dentro da filosofia de cada um que desfigura completamente a realidade, e com isso, as experiências adquirem um tom exagerado no plano emocional. A neurose consiste na arte da vida amarga de acordo com a filosofia da pessoa. O neurótico insiste em atribuir toda a culpa por seus infortúnios às circunstâncias e outras pessoas, e geralmente não percebe que a raiz de sua angústia vem de sua própria filosofia. A psicoterapia, no fundo, é a arte de mudar essa cosmovisão, os critérios de uma pessoa. "Não são as coisas que nos fazem sofrer, mas o que pensamos sobre elas", diz um famoso ditado latino. e) Quanto ao indivíduo, devemos distinguir a pessoa e personalidade. A pessoa é o núcleo interno, seu verdadeiro eu, sua energia permanente. Por outro lado, a personalidade é a maneira pela qual a pessoa se manifesta diante dos outros. Aqui está seu caráter, conhecimento, valores, padrões de comportamento, os elementos do seu inconsciente, seu status. Muitas pessoas se identificam com as características temporárias e frágeis de sua personalidade e não conseguem capturar e valorizar sua pessoa propriamente dita. O estudo da Filosofia ajuda a atingir esse horizonte novo, o que geralmente leva a um aumento na felicidade de alguém. (shrink)