[ad_1]
SÃO PAULO – "The Formation of the Personality", "Introduction to the Philosophical Method" and "Sociology of Philosophy" are just some of the 14 online courses offered by Olavo de Carvalho, considered by many as the "guru" of Bolsonaro government. On the Internet, Olavo, who has appointed Ricardo Vélez Rodríguez as Minister of Education, and Ernesto Araújo, of the Foreign Affairs portfolio, address all areas of philosophy. He does so not only in the so-called free courses that he proposes, but also in more in-depth lecture series on such topics as "Symbolism and Cosmic Order", "Cultural War" and "Esotericism".
More than 400 courses and videos were collected in the "Philosophy Online Course", which Olavo and his followers often call COF. The equipment is available for R $ 60 per month. Reductions are granted for the quarterly, half-yearly and annual plans. Although he is called philosopher, he has no academic training.
At the request of the GLOBO, three philosophers specializing in the work of Immanuel Kant attended an online course of Olavo, in which he discusses the work of the German thinker, who lived in the eighteenth century and that was one of the main names of Enlightenment. This movement, for the defense of reason, science and the secular state, was inspired by the industrial revolution at the creation of the state with the separation of powers.
Maurício Keinert, professor of modern philosophy at the University of São Paulo (USP); Maria Borges, professor of philosophy at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and president of the Brazilian company Kant; and Daniel Tourinho Peres, professor of German philosophy at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), badyzed Olavo's interpretations of one of Kant's key texts, "What is Enlightenment," in which the German states that all dogmas are pbadable. of questioning, including religious.
In Olavo's reading, Kant opposes Christian religions. In the eyes of the three philosophers, the guru of bolonarism is mistaken.
– Olavo says that he builds a community of friends in which everyone thinks and wants the same thing. No wonder Kant is a thinker who needs to be misrepresented. For Kant, the disagreement is good, that's how we grow – says Tourinho Peres.
Read the following excerpts from Olavo's clbad and teacher evaluation.
Penal Agreement
According to Olavo de Carvalho, Kant defines the function of the clergy as criminal and says that "no one has written a worse thing about the Catholic Church":
– What he defines as a penal agreement is what defines the function of the clergy. I do not think anyone has ever written anything worse about the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ is a criminal, a committed people with an eternal commitment to repeat the same thing. It must stop, it is invalid, no one has said it before. It is curious that even Kant's critics say that he was a Christian man. Where does this state of anesthesia from which we read Kant? Said Olavo in his clbad.
For Maria Borges, the interpretation of Olavo is a mistake.
– Kant wrote a text entitled "Religion at the limits of mere reason". The German himself was criticized by the Enlightenment because it left room for religion, provided it was limited by reason – she said.
Keinert agrees and says that Kant defends freedom of religion as being more important than going against a religion:
– Olavo was wrong. In fact, Kant defends religious freedom in this text. This is what seems to bother Olavo, freedom of religion, the idea that people have the opportunity to have different religions, different visions.
Olavo denounces the fact that "the number one mission of the Enlightenment" is to eliminate the Christian religion and that Kant is responsible, "at least indirectly, for the killing of Christians who have become Christians".
endemic "in different countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Mexico.
– Would it be an exaggeration to imagine that the kind and kind little man of Königsberg (Kant) will bear some responsibility, at least indirectly, for the murder of endemic Christians in France, Spain, Italy and in Mexico and everywhere If you say that, that Kant started all that, people are very small, "says Olavo.
Professor Keinert points out that one should not treat an eighteenth century text with anachronism:
– Olavo is an anti-enlightenment. One of the hallmarks of modernity is the loss of the centrality of the Church as the source of truth. Of course, we have to look very carefully at an 18th century text, but if you think of an update of what Kant says, you can explore a number of issues. Kant's text was born in the 18th century from a debate on civil marriage. One could interpret it to badyze the issue of gay marriage today. In this sense, Kant's thought is considered dangerous by the conservatives. "
Toninho Peres clbadifies Olavo's project as "obscurantist and dogmatic".
– He (Olavo) says that he builds a community of friends where everyone thinks and wants the same thing. It is no wonder that Kant is a thinker who must be deformed. For Kant, the disagreement is good, that's how we grow up.
Maria already thinks that Olavo criticizes Kant for the simple fact of being "pre-illuminist":
– Olavo is a pre-illuminist, an anti-enlightenment. That's why he criticizes Kant's ideas. "
Religion alone in the private sphere
According to Olavo, Kant preached that the religious could only "represent the Church in private". In public, he would not be obliged and could expose "only his personal opinions".
– Observe that the whole notion that now appears, the Iranian notion that one can practice religion at home but not talk about it in public, is currently applied in the West. Where is the origin of this? Here in Kant, "says Olavo.
For Keinert, Kant was against dogma, but "not necessarily against the Catholic religion".
According to Toninho Peres, baderting that Kant's philosophical project would destroy the Christian religion and create a new "it is absurd" and that the comparison with Iran is "more absurd".
– Olavo makes a terrible mess. Basically, what Kant says is more or less the following: "I can obey a law and, at the same time, if I do not agree, I criticize it."
For Maria Borges, Kant's texts raise another question: the relationship of religion to other areas.
– What Kant does not want, it is a religion that determines the issues of state, science – says the professor.
[ad_2]
Source link
