estudos:polt:polt-201324-25-pistis-confianca
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| estudos:polt:polt-201324-25-pistis-confianca [16/01/2026 14:40] – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | estudos:polt:polt-201324-25-pistis-confianca [26/01/2026 08:26] (current) – mccastro | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ===== PISTIS (CONFIANÇA) (2013: | ||
| + | <tabbox destaque> | ||
| + | Para a maioria de nós, a maior parte do tempo, o dado em si não é um problema. As coisas em geral estão simplesmente disponíveis e presentes. Tomamo-las como garantidas: não as reconhecemos nem como algo tomado nem como algo concedido. Na experiência comum, confiamos nos entes, usamo-los e referimo-nos a eles, sem refletir sobre o fato de estarem acessíveis em primeiro lugar. Tal como esperamos automaticamente que o chão nos apoie quando damos um passo, contamos com a subsistência do conjunto dos entes em todos os nossos atos. A palavra de Platão para a nossa relação com as coisas corpóreas é também a palavra certa para a nossa relação pré-filosófica com todas as coisas: pistis (República 511e), que é melhor interpretada não como crença nem como fé, mas como confiança. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <tabbox original> | ||
| + | For most of us most of the time, the given as such is no Problem at all. Things in general are simply available and present. We take them for granted: we do Not recognize them either as something taken or as something granted. In ordinary experience we rely on beings, use them, and refer to them, without reflecting on the fact that they are accessible in the first place. Just as we automatically expect the ground to support us when we take a step, we count on the subsistence of the whole of beings in our every act. Plato’s word for our relation to corporeal things is also the right word for our prephilosophical relation to all things: pistis (Republic 511e), which is best interpreted neither as belief nor as faith, but as trust. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of course, within the sphere of things as a whole, there are problems and limits in abundance. Particulars are often untrustworthy or unavailable, | ||
| + | |||
| + | We are primally familiar with the whole; we inhabit it. It is our own in the sense that we are comfortable in it, as a fish is comfortable in the sea. But this is why we cannot recognize it as our own, any more than a fish can recognize that it belongs in the sea and not on land. Precisely because we trust the whole, we cannot experience it as a whole. As long as we are immersed in it, it is impossible for us to encounter it as such. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In terms of philosophical positions, this moment corresponds to a naive empiricism. In order to find the truth we are simply supposed to perceive what is there, get the facts about it, and generalize. This concept of knowledge will always be the most popular, because within our everyday immersion in the whole it functions perfectly well as a way of accumulating information. This attitude can pervade the most advanced scientific research no less than it pervades the most thoughtless, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The experience of a whole as such requires a space that, paradoxically, | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
