|
 |
What’s the use
of the
psychological
aspect of
Spiritualism? |
|
Rogério
Coelho |
Philosophy
allows the
unveiling of
what’s hidden by
tradition
(1st Part)
“Philosophy is
the possibility
of human
transcendence” -
M. L. A. Aranha
& M.H.P. Martins
(1)
In order to
assess the value
of the
philosophical
aspect of
Spiritualism, it
is imperative to
have in mind the
meaning of the
word
“reflection”,
which stems from
the Latin word
“reflectere” and
means: “to
retrocede, to go
back”.
Therefore, to
reflect is to
take back your
own thought, to
think what’s
already been
thought, to turn
to yourself and
challenge what
is already
known…
In the 17th
Century, René
Descartes, the
French
philosopher and
mathematician,
already
presented the
method known as
“Cartesian”,
through which he
stated: “In
order to achieve
the truth we
need, once in
life, to let go
of all the
opinions we
receive and
build again our
systems of
knowledge from
ground up”.
Such method took
him – through
intuition and
deduction – to
find out the
truth of God’s
existence and
his own.
According to
Gramsci, “we
cannot think of
any man who is
not a
philosopher as
well, who does
not think,
precisely
because thinking
belongs to man
as such”.
The friendly
Spirits
(2)
make clear that
“with thought
man enjoys
unlimited
freedom, for
there’s no way
to restrain it.
You may stop the
flying, however,
you cannot kill
it… To impel men
to proceed
against their
way of thinking
is to turn them
into hypocrites.
Freedom in the
realm of
consciousness is
one of the
features of true
civilization and
progress”.
Philosophical
reflection
unfolds into
three levels:
radical, strict
and of a group
Hence, there’s
no doubt that
freedom of
thought is
everyone’s
right. To
restrict it
would be to
breed
hypocrites, as
it happens with
forced
conversions. We
may, then,
conclude that
philosophy is
thinking’s
favorite child
and is born at
the moment it is
put into
evidence,
becoming the
object of
reflection.
Common man, in
day-to-day’s
life, is lead to
“stop”
every now and
then, in a
necessary
“staccato”,
in order to
regain the
meaning of his
thoughts and
actions, when he
is asked to
reflect.
However, a sheer
reflection does
not generate
Philosophy, but
philosophical
reflection.
On the other
hand,
philosophical
reflection
unfolds into
three levels:
radical, strict
and of group.
Let’s interpret
these three
topics with
Professor
Demerval
Saviani:
Radical
– from the Latin
Word: “radix,
radicis”
meaning
“root”, and
in a figurative
sense:
“foundation,
base”.
Therefore,
philosophy is
radical not in
the common sense
of being
inflexible (in
this case
anti-philosophy),
but in the sense
that it aims at
expliciting the
fundamental
concepts used in
all the fields
of thinking and
behaving.
Strict
– While a
“philosophy of
life” does
not arrive at
conclusions to
the last
consequences,
and is not
always able to
examine all its
fundamentals, a
philosopher must
dispose of a
clearly explicit
method in order
to proceed with
rigor, making
sure there’s
coherence in the
exercise of
criticism.
Mainly because a
philosopher not
just makes
affirmations, he
needs to back
them up with
arguments. In
order to do so
he uses a
strict language,
which avoids
amphibology,
that is, avoids
ambiguity or
duplicity of
meaning of
day-to-day
expressions and
allows a
discussion with
other
philosophers
from clearly
defined
concepts.
Through
transcendence,
man appears as a
being
capable of
building his
destiny
This is why a
philosopher
always
“invents
concepts”,
or creates new
expressions and
neologisms, or
alters and
specifies the
meaning of
ordinary words.
Of group
– While sciences
are particular,
because they
approach
“fragments”
of reality and
distinguish
themselves from
other forms of
knowledge, and
human action
expresses itself
in the most
varied forms,
philosophy is
globalizing,
for it examines
problems from a
group
perspective,
relating its
different
aspects with
each other. In
this sense,
besides
considering that
the objective of
philosophy is
everything
(for nothing
escapes its
interest), we
sum it up by
saying that
philosophy aims
at the whole,
the totality.
Hence the
interdisciplinary
function of
philosophy,
establishing the
link between the
various forms of
knowledge and
behavior of
human beings.
The way by which
a philosophical
reflection is
done varies
according to the
guidance of the
philosopher and
the historical
trends deriving
from situations
experienced by
men in their
action over the
world.
At this point we
may ask:
“Where’s the
need for
philosophy?”
The scholars
(1)
are unanimous
when claiming
that the use and
even the need
for philosophy
are anchored in
the fact that,
through
reflection, it
allows men to
have more than
one dimension,
besides the one
that comes from
acting
immediately, in
which the
“practical man”,
is trapped.
It’s philosophy
that gives the
gap necessary
for the
evaluation of
the fundamentals
of human actions
and the ends
that those means
are intended
for; it gathers
the thought
fragmented by
science and
rebuilds it in
its unity; it
restores the
action
pulverized by
time and tries
to understand
it. Therefore,
philosophy is
the possibility
of human
transcendence,
that is, the
ability that
only man
possesses of
overcoming a
given situation
and a not chosen
one. Through
transcendence,
man appears as a
being in the
development
process, capable
of being free
and building his
own destiny.
Philosophy is
the criticism of
ideology as an
illusionary form
of knowledge
As paradoxical
as it may seem,
this gap is
exactly what
brings man
closer to life.
Whitehead, a
contemporary
British
mathematician
said that
“the purpose of
reasoning is to
promote the art
of life”.
Philosophy
recovers the
process lost in
the inertia of
things made
(dead, for being
outmoded).
Philosophy stops
stagnation. This
is why, to
philosophize
always confronts
power,
and its
investigation is
not far from
ethics and
politics. This
is what the
historian of
philosophy
François
Châtelet states
when he wrote:
“Since there has
been a State –
from Greek
cities to
contemporary
bureaucracies -,
the idea of
truth has always
gone back to the
side of powers
(or was
recovered by
them, as a
witness, for
example, the
evolution of
French thought
from the 18th
Century to the
19th
Century.
Therefore, the
specific
contribution of
philosophy that
puts itself at
the service of
freedom, of all
freedoms, is to
undermine,
through the
analyses it
operates and the
actions that it
triggers, the
repressive and
simplifying
institutions:
whether it is
related to
science,
teaching,
translation,
research,
medicine,
family, the
police, the
prison system,
the bureaucratic
systems, what
matters is to
expose the mask,
dislocate it,
yank it off …”.
Philosophy is,
therefore, the
criticism of
ideology, as an
illusory form of
knowledge that
aims at keeping
privileges.
Looking at the
etymology of the
Greek word that
corresponds to
truth (a-létheia,
a-letheúein,
“unveil”), we
see that the
truth is to
expose what
was hidden, and
there is the
vocation of the
philosopher:
the unveiling of
what is hidden
by tradition, by
convention, by
power…
Kardec elected
philosophy as
one of the three
main vortexes of
Spiritualism
Finally,
philosophy
demands courage.
To philosophize
is not a purely
intellectual
exercise. To
find the truth
is to have the
courage to face
stagnated forms
of power that
try to maintain
the “status
quo”, it is
to accept the
challenge of
change. (This is
not easy,
considering the
ancestral
laziness of
man.)
Socrates and
Jesus faced –
boldly and
fearlessly – the
greatest
challenge of
death in defense
of the truth
they preached.
We may, by now,
understand why
Allan Kardec
elected
Philosophy
to be one of the
three main
vortexes of
Spiritualism.
And we
understand that
even more so
when we observe
that Philosophy
neither
encourages
stifling
dogmatism nor
skepticism,
being the latter
a philosophical
position that
concludes for
the
impossibility of
knowledge,
either in a
moderate form of
temporary
suspension of
reasoning, or
the radical
refusal in
formulating a
conclusion.
On the other end
where we find
skepticism,
there is
dogmatism,
according to
which the
philosopher
considers
himself the
bearer of
absolute and
undoubted
truths. While
the dogmatic
clings to the
certainty of a
doctrine, the
skeptical
concludes for
the
impossibility of
all certainties
and, in this
sense, considers
useless the
search that goes
nowhere.
Comparing the
two opposite
positions, we
may realize that
they share a
static view of
the world: the
dogmatic reaches
a certainty and
stays there; the
skeptical is
eager for
assurance and
decides it is
unreachable.
But philosophy
is motion, for
the world is in
motion.
Certainty and
its denial are
only two
movements
(thesis and
antithesis),
that will be
overcome by
synthesis,
which, in its
turn, will be
the new thesis
and so forth…
(This article
will be resumed
in the next
issue)
Footnotes:
|
