ENLIGHTNMENT PHILOSOPHERS - BY VALDEMIR MOTA DE MENEZES

Enlightenment philosophers



We will know a little more about the

greatest philosophers of the "Age of Enlightenment", in which

Most were from France.

These criticized, especially in his works:

• Remnants feudal;

• The absolutist regime and commercialism;

• The Church's influence on society;

• The inequality of rights and duties between individuals.

Among the French Enlightenment stood out:

Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) - His major work was entitled The Spirit

Laws and published in 1748. The theoretical addressed the various forms of

government, exposing the need to separate the functions of the state in three

independent powers. His work had a great influence on the formation of

national governments in the post-revolutionary period.





Voltaire (1694 - 1778) - Known as the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, wove several critical privileges of the nobility and clergy, being forced into exile in England. Among his major works stand out

"English Letters" and "Candide" and has also collaborated in the preparation of

"Encyclopedia". Strongly criticized absolutism of divine right,

proposing a more active participation of the bourgeoisie in the aspects of government as a way to secure peace and freedom. As Montesquieu

his ideas influenced not only other theorists, but rulers general.



Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) - Defended the lower classes

detriment of bourgeois society, being considered the thinker

most radical of his time. His ideas are based on justice and

equality through sovereignty popular and are summarized in

his works: "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among Men"

and "Social Contract".





At first, the author accuses of destroying private property freedom

social. In the book "Social Contract", Rousseau claimed to reduce

inequality, men should consent to a social contract,

whose essence was the will of the community prevail over the will

individual. For the philosopher, the government was the "minister of the sovereign," that is, if the people were deemed sovereign, his power was subjugated to same.



In summary, the modern thinkers also known

Enlightenment broke as a paradigm of the time,

to strongly criticize the old regime, characterized

by absolutist power.

BLAISE PASCAL (Fr)

BLAISE PASCAL Ce philosophe était un excellent exemple d'une personne avec un esprit scientifique et vivait encore tourmentés par leurs péchés. Dans le même temps, plus le Blaise Pascal enquête sur l'univers, plus il a vu la preuve de l'existence du Créateur. L'esprit critique de Pascal, conduit de plus en plus à croire en Dieu. Blaise Pascal était un homme en avance sur son temps.(Commentaire de Scribe: Valdemir Mota de Menezes)

HUMANISMO

O escriba Valdemir Mota de Menezes é contra a corrente filosófica antropocentrica do humanismo. Acredito que tudo gira em torno de Deus, só Deus importa. Existimos para a sua glória. Nossa existência não tem significado sem Deus.

----------------------

A uma concepção teocêntrica , que tem em Deus o
centro do universo, opõe-se uma outra, antropocêntrica,
que faz do homem o ponto de convergência
para o saber. Dizer que Antigüidade fora esquecido
no medievo seria falsear a verdade. Mas o humanista
procura a Antigüidade autêntica, no original, e não
nas formas moralistas de interpretação eclesiástica.
O humanista acredita no homem, sem, entretanto,
endossar espiritualmente o paganismo, sem deixar
de amar a Deus; procura também a vida e a beleza,
traços típicos da cultura greco-latina.


AZEVEDO, Antonio Carlos do Amaral. Op.cit. p, 212. Sonetos de Petrarca. Disponível
em : http://www.estacio.br/rededeletras/numero8/parlaquetefabene/petrarca_sonetos.
asp. Acessado em 31/08/2007.

PLATÓN

PLATÓN


Este importante filósofo griego nacido en Atenas, probablemente en 427 a. C. y murió
en 347 a. C. Es considerado uno de los grandes pensadores griegos, como influencia
profundamente la filosofía occidental. Sus ideas se basan en la diferenciación del mundo
entre las cosas sensibles (el mundo de las ideas y la inteligencia) y las cosas visibles (los seres y la materia viva).

FATALISM

ON-HUMAN

Answering the question raised by the teacher who asked:

Was there today any ideology capable of causing changes that would lead people to a better future?


Throughout human history we saw various forms of government, all with the promise of a better life for their citizens. Generation after generation we see that the errors are repeated, or if renewed, is rarely forgotten them. Personal interests always startle the public and community interests. We want justice, equality and fraternity, but we have committed injustice, we want to be different and we want others to agree with us. The big problem I see in humanity is not ideological in nature, we always have good ideas to improve the world, however, all our proposals fail because of our human nature, malicious, greedy, selfish, tricky, hedonistic, weak, perverse, and other qualifications for exemption be listed.

Just to recall, the exercise of power systems and forms of governments that have experience in this world are:
anarchism
democracy
authoritarianism
monarchy
theocracy
parliamentarism
republicanism
oligarchy
presidentialism
autocracy
militarism
technocracy


This huge pot called planet Earth where we live, has introduced all kinds of recipes economic, political, religious imaginable to try to establish a kingdom of peace and prosperity on Earth. ALL IN VAIN. We need no more ideologies, enough!!

Frankly, the failure of the human species is inevitable. I see only one solution with superhuman intervention to govern men on earth and change human nature inside. I'm a fatalist because the historical experience leads me to believe that only an intervention paranormal, supernatural, supernormal, super-human can change this system of things.

Back to answering the question of the teacher, I repeat that NO IDEOLOGY MAY IMPROVE LIFE. Humanity needs to create waves of fads and live, now dominated ideologies are on earth, at other times, other ideologies predominate, all in vain.
A summary of my observations is the same as the wise Solomon summarized in a few pages called The Book of Ecclesiastes. The wise chapter by chapter of his book ends with always the same conclusion: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (GO).


REFERENCES:
WikipediaSolomon, Book of Ecclesiastes

SOCRATES

Socrates (469-399 BC) is known by his disciples, Xenophon


and Plato. Born in Athens, received a careful education

his parents: Sophroniscus, sculptor and Fenareti, midwife. His teaching was

oral, wrote nothing. Nevertheless, he was considered one of the men most

sages of his time. Nevertheless, it was not considered wise.

The Pythia the oracle of Delphi, on behalf of Apollo, was quoted by one of

Socrates' relatives that there was a wiser man than he.

Concerned about such an announcement, sought to investigate and examine the meaning

those words and went out to inquire who said they were wise, but nothing

knew. At the end of his investigation, he realized why it was considered

sage: "Just know that I know nothing. " From that moment, he realized he had

one mission: to provoke thought and bring this to others so that

they became aware of its limitations and prejudices, freeing up

of false-



(SOURCE: Metropolitan University of Santos - Course of History)

ABSOLUTISMO POR MAQUIAVEL

Absolutismo, por Maquiavel.





DE QUE MODO SE DEVAM GOVERNAR AS CIDADES

OU PRINCIPADOS QUE, ANTES DE SEREM OCUPADOS,

VIVIAM COM AS SUAS PRÓPRIAS LEIS

(QUOMODO ADMINISTRANDAE SUNT CIVITATES

VEL PRINCIPATUS, QUI ANTEQUAM OCCUPARENTUR,

SUIS LEGIBUS VIVEBANT)

Quando aqueles Estados que se conquistam, como

foi dito, estão habituados a viver com suas próprias

leis e em liberdade, existem três modos de conservá-los:

o primeiro, arruiná-los; o outro, ir habitá-los pessoalmente;

o terceiro, deixá-los viver com suas leis,

arrecadando um tributo e criando em seu interior um

governo de poucos, que se conservam amigos, porque,

sendo esse governo criado por aquele príncipe,

sabe que não pode permanecer sem sua amizade e

seu poder, e há que fazer tudo por conservá-los. Querendo

preservar uma cidade habituada a viver livre,

mais facilmente que por qualquer outro modo se a

conserva por intermédio de seus cidadãos.

Como exemplos, existem os espartanos e os romanos.

Os espartanos conservaram Atenas e Tebas,

nelas criando um governo de poucos; todavia, perderam-

nas. Os romanos, para manterem Cápua, Cartago

e Numância, destruíram-nas e não as perderam;

quiseram conservar a Grécia quase como o fizeram

os espartanos, tornando-a livre e deixando-lhe suas

próprias leis e não o conseguiram: em razão disso,

para conservá-la, foram obrigados a destruir muitas

cidades daquela província.

É que, em verdade, não existe modo seguro para conservar

tais conquistas, senão a destruição. E quem se

torne senhor de uma cidade acostumada a viver livre

e não a destrua, espere ser destruído por ela, porque

a mesma sempre encontra, para apoio de sua rebelião,

o nome da liberdade e o de suas antigas instituições,

jamais esquecidas seja pelo decurso do tempo,

seja por benefícios recebidos. Por quanto se faça e se

proveja, se não se dissolvem ou desagregam os habitantes,

eles não esquecem aquele nome nem aquelas

instituições, e logo, a cada incidente, a eles recorrem

como fez Pisa cem anos após estar submetida aos

florentinos.