Tag Archive: Philosophy

King Lear

A religion Greek the religion Greek was formed through a long prehistoric and historical period. Through the data that we have currently, we can infer certain prehistoric influences and only affirm the established historical aspects in a profusion of dispersed data. Educate yourself with thoughts from Ali Partovi. Undeniably given of the minica civilization, associates the cultural substrata of populations autctones of continental Greece, had created the first forms of cult religious. The cave, for example, as local of cult, certainly originary of neolithic cretenses cults and later carried to the continent, appears in all history Greek, until the rficos cults (these of Asian origin and delayed incorporated to the culture Greek) and making an appearance in the myth of the cave of Plato. The deities of the sky and the storm, with Zeus, have clear Indo-European origins and had been brought in the north for the people aqueu and drico. Castle Harlan is likely to agree. Other deities, as Atena and Demter, have Aegean inheritance. It also has the group of deities that has foreign origin, generally Asian, as Ares and Dioniso, both mattering of the Thracian; Afrodite equally has Asian origin, possibly of Babilnia.

Other deities are the result of a multicultural sincretismo: Possidon, for example, where the horse discloses to origins Scandinavians and tridente and the sovereignty of the sea discloses a god southern. This process of formation was extended for some hundreds of years and was established for return of the VIII century B.C. Homero had the paper of first compiler of the beliefs Greeks, when placing deuses as personages in its workmanships. In these narrations deuses constantly is intervined in the life of the heroes, many times using the human beings as joguetes of its particular conflicts. It was perhaps thinking about this aspect that Shakespeare wrote in ‘ ‘ King Lear’ ‘: ‘ ‘ We them men, are for deuses what they are the flies at the hands of the children who, to have fun themselves, matam.’ ‘ (Shakespeare? King Lear Act IV).

Humanity Society

However, as the proper massificao, the alienation is generated and fed for one another mechanism: the ideology. Spider & Martins (apud Chau), makes the following comment: The ideology is a logical, systematic and coherent set of representations (ideas and values) and of norms or rules (of behavior) that they indicate and they prescribe to the members of the society what they must think and as they must think, what they must value and as they must value, what they must feel and as they must feel, what they must make and as they must make. It is, therefore, a body clarifying (representations) and practical (norms, rules, rules) of prescriptive, normative, regulating character, whose function is to give to the members of a society divided in classrooms a rational explanation for the social differences, cultural politics and, without never attributing such differences to the division of the society in classrooms, from the divisions in the sphere of the production. For the opposite, the function of the ideology is to erase the differences as of classrooms and to supply to the members of the society the feeling of the social identity, finding certain identification referenciais of all and for all, as, for example, the Humanity, the Freedom, the Equality, the Nation, or the State. Basically, the ideology is a systematic body of representation of norms that in ‘ ‘ ensinam’ ‘ to know and to act.

(1988, P. 70-71) On the same question, Cotrim, commenting Marilena Chau, it observes the following one: the ideology notion presents the following general traces: . priority? the ideology functions as a destined set of ideas, norms and values to fix and to prescribe, of beforehand, the ways to think, to feel and to act of the people. In reason of its priority, the ideology predetermines the thought and the action, disdaining the history and the practical one in which each person if inserts, she lives and she produces; .


42). The weakness of the man, as well as its artificialismo is acquired by means of the progress. In this direction, speech in progress is to speak of weakness. The science that progresses in facilitating the life, in providing to the man a more comfortable existence, consists as a fabuloso and, at the same time, terrificante instrument that corrodes the character and the state of hardeness. It seems us that Rousseau intends to search the image of the original man, from there the critical one to the progress and science. With such critical Rousseau it considers the robbing of the facultieses (artificial) that the progress brought to the man. To this respect it comments N.J.H. Dent: ' ' Of these gradual changes differences of wealth and power emerge, which qualify some to prosper while others live in the imposed poverty, and that they result finally in the institution of unjust States, which strengthen such inaqualities for the positive law; some characteristics of the life are these human being that receive from Rousseau most severe crticas' ' (DENT, 1996, p.189).

This means that the scientific-social progress is selective since nor all have access it. In fact it is not what we observe? If Rousseau had reason at its time, has much more nowadays! We live in the civilization, the empire of the technology, the absolutizao of the power of science, conceiving it as the only one half of solution for the problems of the man. However, this nothing more is of what the endeusamento, the divinizao of the technology (specifically) and science (in felt more general). This progress of divinizao (or divinizatrio progress) it produces a disequilibrium, a desmedida and disordered confidence as well as a cientificismo endeusado for reason of a salvfica hope. To everything this Rousseau would call illusion, fiction, artificialismo. The inaquality is strengthened by this tecnolatria (or cienciolatria), therefore in certain direction all are reached by it, for this belief despite a minority only enjoys of the benefits.

Internet Culture

However, in recent decades, the boundaries between these cultures is gradually erased. This is partly explained by the fact that participation in creating a culture has become much easier task than before: for example, anyone can create a homepage on the Internet and put it on my poems or drawings, thus becoming a part world cultural process. However, such manifestations of creativity, as authors of personal pages on the Internet can not with absolute certainty attributed to the popular culture, as they are filled with individual experiences of the creator, the products of mass media and popular culture radically different from the works of such authors. The cardinal difference between products of popular culture and mass media is that they are configured on formation of a particular climate (informational or emotional), as well as the most effective messages in terms of emotion. There's even lost information laden mass-media messages on forefront the emotions caused by precisely organized suggestive techniques. Create the most powerful emotion in the shortest amount of time in a format accessible to everyone – this is a popular strategy culture, aimed at creating a uniform field of emotional subjects of mass culture.

At the same stimuli is assumed the same reaction from each recipient, which can then be relayed without any changes in an almost unlimited number of times. It is necessary to refer also to the phenomenon of fashion, which is also included in the mechanisms of maintaining popular culture, shaping the space of the same clothes – clothing accessible to everyone. Thus, the line between individuals and the level of clothing, along with the information level and the level of emotional distress … and at the same time, forming a filter – high fashion and its derivatives to create a barrier between the worlds "for all" and "select". Only peace "select", in fact, a construct of the mass culture that supports the above mechanism, and the purpose of its existence – serve as the imaginary boundary of mass culture and mass society for all. Thus, it is clear that popular culture has a fairly effective mechanisms to erase borders and restoration of the imaginary, but there structures that are difficult to destroy and obezgranichivaniyu "as an example, the symbolic universe, which is an integral part of every human being (in particular, part of the mental field some people is information about the Crimea).