Introdução à Filosofia JusPolítica

0:04 Hello everyone, good evening. We are starting our first class of political philosophy this semester, 2020, 2021. We are here with a group of political philosophy, a big hug to Brenon and Kelly, and we will begin our class essentially with the two scholars, Machiavelli, and Uberlândia hasn't decided, right? I hope they decide on contemporary political philosophy, especially the philosophers of

0:51 critical theory. Let's see, right? So, I'm going to start the class today by giving you a general overview, about the history of political philosophy. Since we go to classes, the meetings are very short, right? And we don't have time to work on each other, work by work, not even the most important ones. So, I'm going to do this by giving you a brief overview, and then we'll have more information on modern and contemporary thought. Okay, if you have any questions, want to make a contribution, or have any doubts, or want to

1:36 add, you can feel free. There's this little hand here, we'll raise it, but you don't need to, teacher, interrupt in a voice, just with your voice. I wanted to say I wanted to add something, I asked, feel free, okay, okay, guys, so we are, it's me. In other times, I started here at UFAL, Tim. Her discipline was normally, and I always started the discipline sometimes, working there since the ancients, in the age, a vision of Greece, Greek democracy, that whole thing. And I often worked with Plato's work in the Republic, right? That thing about systems of government, right? The idea of ​​Plato the

2:24 philosopher king, all that stuff, right? The common way he thinks, let's say, from the ideal point of view, what would a good government in Greece be like? What I even comment on, including this, right? My son, I find the vision interesting, right? Of you building a type of society, one that, in his view, would be more perfect than each member of society, which would be like a kind of organ, the state. Society would be seen as an organism, so we usually talk about organism. And

3:09 this organicist vision, right? Currently, Axel Honneth is a contemporary philosopher and returned to his thinking and speaks of an organicist vision of society. He will talk about social pathology, right? And he deals with pathologies as of society as a kind of organism, right? So, Plato Aristotle, they treat if the society is not ancient as the kind of organism of each member, right? The class, let's say so, is that we can talk about social classes, right? In the Greek sense, they would have their place in society, right? So, he will talk about

3:55 the Warriors, right? Of those who will defend the police, right? He will talk about the philosopher who would have gone through all these states, it would be a stage in the, would have been a warrior and such until reaching maturity to govern and know the current affairs and these individuals, they are even associated with the figure of the body, right? Human, right? So, the philosopher, the one who will govern, is associated with the head, right? Of this organism, the warriors, the trunk, right? The classes that are concerned with getting rich, right? The artisans and merchants will be, and the lower part of the trunk, the belly, right? To those who are only concerned with

4:42 certain interests in the physical and not spiritual, as we could say that in the Greek sense, right? And even the modern German, right? In the sense of the way they understand the word spirit, right? That later, we, as I remember, will talk about king, which I will deal a little with, right? Especially when he talks about of the objective Spirit, right? So I see the following: then you have Aristotle, right? With the work too, if you go deeper into this issue of ancient political philosophy, right? You have the text of politics, where he will study

5:29 various constitutions and talk about mixed forms of government, that's what you're talking about here, well before the class, and he even got very interested in ethical philosophy, right? Philosophy, Stoicism, Hellenism, right? And purist, these. In my undergraduate studies, I did a work, right? About these, these authors, right? From which we take ethical philosophy, right? And then this period of philosophy is very interesting, right? When the Polis is no longer functioning in things, Uber anxiety, right? And then you have the invasion, nothing, there are some Nei, and you have Alexandre Neck. Aristotle acts as his kind of tutor,

6:16 right? And then he takes the Greek way of thinking and tries to unite a Western vision with a very Eastern one, right? Of thought, including a kind of miscegenation, right? Of these peoples, you will have philosophy focused more on private life, right? During this period, right? Unlike that of Greece, right? Which was in the philosophers, they got along well. concerned with the political vision, right, with the Polis, right, with this vision, this concern with Ethos, right, with Edna's administration, with taking care of direct things, right, the focus will even talk about this

7:05 moment, right, I'm seeing ethics as a kind of aesthetics, right, of existence and such, and making everyone analyze, right, the form of Greek behavior, right, which has a much more different, more open view of society, right, than in relation to relationships, including from a sexual point of view, right, the Greeks have a way of being very different from what was the accident later, especially the Middle Ages, right, which saw Sexuality in a very prejudiced way, right, and very much so, right now. There's even an author, Judith Butler, who works a lot on

7:51 these issues, and returning to the thinking of pho.co. She did her doctoral thesis, I found it interesting. I discovered this, I don't understand it, later, it was about Hegel, the question of desire, right, Judith Butler. But then she talks about Fucou and other authors, and she is a philosopher, besides being a psychoanalyst, not from the University, there with columns and such, linked to critical theory, and she will talk precisely about this something for this heteronormative vision that we have until today, right? This binary vision, right? That was historically established as the form, right? of Norma, right?

8:38 Considered normal or considered in what prevails, what dominates socially in Rio, and the other forms, descend, become discriminated against, right? And I find the analysis that Judith Butler does very interesting, but before her, she did a very interesting analysis in her, in her, in her, in her owners there, her Brazil history of sexuality and other works, it's very interesting, right? And all the analysis there of the Greeks is not very interesting, but look, it's during the medieval period, you have to ask a little taste, right? During that time, the church itself was accused of being

9:25 guilty of the fall of the Roman Empire, right? He writes the work, society there, the City of God, right? Speaking of the church, it begins, let's say, with the species city, Rome would be the city, the orbs, right? The human city also has other important authors in Thomas Aquinas. In addition to the political issue as well, but from the point of view of political philosophy, we tend to deal a lot with the moderns, right, because they have a very strong, very big influence, and before the moderns, you have the figure of Machiavelli. in this period of transition of the Renaissance, where there is a

10:11 very big differentiation, right? Machiavelli will not, right? articulate to make a relationship like the Greeks and the medieval ones did between ethics and politics, right? He will make a certain split, not even in a certain aspect. You will have a much greater concern with political analysis from the point of view of empirical observation in this historical and empirical of political relations and they were established, right? So you see in the prince, right? All his analysis as

10:57 second secretary there in Florence, what he does in his learning, right? practical of the form of government that should behave, right? of interest, right? political, right? Mainly of creating any type of state, in which especially the church, which was an obstacle to the development of many European states for a long time, is Machiavelli has a whole role of practical concern, right? of how to organize, right? You are about how the ruler should behave, right? There is

11:45 a very practical concern and not that old medieval idea, right? He even talks about a government, no, from the point of view of a Pastoral vision, right? Not a type of ruler of governability, but you have a previous vision where the idea of ​​the ruler in the era the idea of ​​that shepherd, right, who should lead souls, right, to stop for salvation and such, in Machiavelli, he passes his, let's say, the first point of mediation with modern philosophers in the sense of having a concern, not a

12:36 concern with this thing of an ethics of a transcendence of absolute ends, right, but a well-contextualized concern, right, Anna, the type of government and society in the established one, from the immanent point of view, it is not like that from the historical point of view, but from the point of view of an administration, let's say, worldly and not that concern and that vision that the church had, right, throughout the Middle Ages, where governments were

13:23 subject to its power. Robinson, right. He is one of the great and first modern philosophers, and you could put it as quite important for political philosophy, for political theory and not only for political philosophy. Political Science also studies hobbies, just like studying iron, right, and other other forms of thought, international actions, right, law, right, when dealing with issues, even from the point of view of international relations in the EU. Hobbes is cited

14:11 many times with Machiavelli and others, not so you have the figure of Hobbes, right, speaking of a state of a where the government is not up to the ruler, right? The cover of Leviathan itself already gives a general idea of ​​Hobby's thinking, placing the figure of the ruler as someone big, right, with a sword, right, and a cross on the other. But to show here the power, right, what matters is the power of the state, but no longer the power, for example, of having a state submissive to the Pope, right, as it was throughout the Middle Ages, like Robes, despite talking about one,

14:58 I am a notist, but he opens space for the question of a liberal thought, right, because he will leave a gap for the question of what Zaia Bela calls negative liberty, right, it would be the private liberty of the individual, right, the right to have his own opinion, his own thought, right, his own Freedom from a private point of view. This already appears in Hobbes, right, with a high level, right. And despite talking about a state in the

15:43 sense of Leviathan, in the sense of the absolute absolutist State, but which is also a defender of a certain liberalism, like Hobbes, in the second treatise on civil government, right, he is not blatantly, let's say, defending this idea of ​​liberalism. right, political, right, defending the idea, all these authors will work on these modern ones, starting from Hobbes with the idea of a supposed state of nature, right, we could say that it is a fictitious state, right, as a way of legitimizing the type of society that will be established, right,

16:33 so you remember, you've already started, you've already had some modern philosophy, that modern philosophy's main characteristic, I was wrong, I did it very well, right, I don't know what the texts are, is that it is from Kart, it is not a philosophy of the subject, right, in the whole issue of ecosystem logic, in the issue of rationalism, it is the issue of knowledge, but also the issue of ethics, political issue, everything goes through the sieve of subjectivity, remember there in the metaphysical meditations, but especially in the discourse of the method on this side, that knowledge, right, is verified

17:20 from clicking on it, it has to go through the sieve of subjectivity, through the sieve of the subject, right, subject, he is in the discourse of the method, he begins to doubt all things, right, to put into doubt all forms of thought, right, of reality itself, right, and from Kart, it comes to a conclusion, right, after that this subject, that and he cannot doubt one thing about the fact that something life he is thinking right? Here comes That one, that

18:08 famous phrase of burden is I think right, Therefore I am right, I cogito Ergo sum I think therefore I am lunched Augustine came to use this this this this phrase had another meaning right, so the author, let's say so of transition how does he found modernity we could say that it is from kart right, he from here the knowledge it passes through the sieve of the subjectivity of rationality and a rationality right, which is the reason of the subject is subjective So this relationship between a subject

18:54 what thinks right, who obtains the truth of the object and the other colors blue the world and the other things the object this subject-object relationship it becomes right, it is founding right, for modern philosophy with from car but you will see ethics modern ethics which is an ethics and it is that it also passes through the sieve in the of and of the subject of subjectivity Kantian ethics is an ethics that proposed Universal is but it is the subject that is given in the

19:40 form of categorical imperative right, the norm and he will follow you have today in our contemporary era, the ethics of discourse, and here the atheist is wrong, but they end up sinking into it, and then the tail, sisters, then they start talking only about a theory of discourse instead of just the currency of discourse, but then it is an ethics based on the idea of rationality, a rationality that proposes a community in the ideal of subjects, right? It is no longer subjectivity, but only, right? What is the end of this Epic

20:25 in the sense of the Kantian categorical imperative? I do n't know if you have already worked on ethics and these authors that I 'm talking about here, but if not, right? You are still well, or in the middle, right? From the middle of the course to the end, still, you can still see a lot of things, and I don't intend to make it difficult for the language content in us, we try to be as clear as possible from a political point of view. You will have in modernity the authors that you will hear a lot about: the contractualists, the naturalist judge, right? Who found the idea of ​​a government and society on the idea of ​​a contract made between the ruler and

21:11 society. Service in Hobbes, the CV without Block, you see this, invoked the course, I am you. You see this in Kant, right? He 's not a naturalist judge, no contractualist. He has a different vision, right? But he seeks an idea of rationality and legitimacy of power, and while criticizing this discourse, he seeks to overcome and preserve the idea of legitimacy in the same sense, but regulates, just like Machiavelli. He has a historical vision, right? That the government is a creation of a historical power, and that for the rule to be ethical and rational, right? In modern times, but

21:59 look at the contractualists. You have hobbies there, with the idea that it's not the individuals who live in a supposed state of nature, right? Where relationships are extremely dangerous, right? Extremely dangerous. It's Freud, how we go after working. I've already left a text with you. I hope that after this first book that I passed on to you, we can discuss, right? Some things. Diaper uses the expression "Hobby," right? In the state of nature, man is a wolf to man. I love men. Lupus, in Latin, homo hominis, lupus. Man is a wolf to man because it

22:46 is a state of profound inequality, deep, with a lot of sweetness, right? Because I'm stronger and whoever establishes the through of your strength, of your power, of your will, the individual can kill another in the group, you can kill another, you can take what the other has, you can rape, you can kill, you can do anything, right? Because there is no legitimate power, right? There is no political society, in which, from the point of view of the State, how do we go about

23:32 finding legitimate and illegitimate ideas of the modern state? There is no such power, which are they to establish laws over the individual, right? In Freud, he is not a philosopher. You know, we will talk about fraud in the sense that especially the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory will appropriate psychoanalysis to analyze the subject in contemporary times, right? They appropriate Matos, right? They appropriate Hegel, right? To talk about society and other authors, right? So, Freud, there is that myth that Freud uses to create society, no diaper, different from the

24:19 diaper. He says that the father, right? It's primordial, not like that, not very humanized, he had all the women, the daughters, and as wives, right? As lovers, and only he had that power, right? And José, more children, he is not a man, he has millions, right? You killed by the father and not the right, right? Father had to abuse women, and they kill father, right? He's a tyrant. They kill father and eat his flesh, right? So they make a kind of pact. It also doesn't establish a type of society where, from

25:04 that moment on, a kind of ritual is established, right? And individuals, they prohibit both parricide and [Music] And then I always came up with the relationships between father and son, right? Between the word, this occurs. Kelly Baron is incest. Princess, thank you very much. Wow, it almost didn't come out. I used that word late yesterday teaching.

25:51 Incest is also prohibited. So, Freud uses it when we use it to study social texts. We'll see the way, but Freud uses it a lot. He appropriates and uses this very conception, Robesianly, that man, homo hominis lupus, exists. At the top, there is the state, not man, he is a wolf to man, right? Then, see rock, right? Also, in the second treatise on civil government, it talks about a Liberal government, right? The individuals, they don't place, all the power in the hands of these rulers. It's not the ruler who is there. to defend their interests if the ruler is

26:38 against rights, which in the state of nature, such as life and property, right? These are typically rights, freedom, right? Typically liberal rights, right? For Ló, which already exists in the state of nature, then he can be removed by society. Not even society can reveal itself and can remove this government. For Robson, for Lovelock, right? But today he also talks about a state of nature, but in Ló's state of nature, which is not this Hobbesian state of nature. Some individuals already work there, and already have their property, and everything they have is the result of their work. I see the Liberal vision as it is, right? So, after

27:25 Marxism, they will criticize, saying, "Wow, then the individual who has nothing because he's lazy, right? No, everything he has is property, the result of work, so the individual is tense. The bourgeois vision has this, this way of thinking is to legitimize inequality based on the idea that the work, right, of the bourgeoisie, who is very rich, right, because he is a... He worked a lot, right? And it's not like that, right? You know that all the wealth, right? That's the goal in the whole issue of inheritance, all the inequality that is established, but the Legitimacy, for example, that Unlock establishes from the point of view of freedom of property, right, of life, as

28:11 natural rights, they have to be respected and defended by the State. So, the State's objective is a state that imposes security, right? The objective of the State is security for property owners, for citizens, right? You understand the different vision, right? The Liberal vision, remember that liberalism and democracy are totally different things. Here today, right? We have a vision, right? of a government of a Liberal democracy. Why do I say this? I recently wrote an article in a chapter of a book talking about international relations, philosophy,

28:59 international relations. And there I comment on a series of issues, right? How did the United States, for example, spend a lot of time trying to establish, especially in the Arab world, in the world there, values? values ​​of a Liberal democracy in which they are not well accustomed, thinking that these values ​​have to be imposed and universalized. John Rawls himself puts this there in his theory, right, of Justice? So, you have a vision that they have the vision that, for example, China, which in a few years will be the world's largest economy, everything already indicates that everything is directed in that direction. It is the

29:46 most competent state today in terms of Economy in the development of infrastructure. Good morning, all countries had to buy from China, including the United States, right? Donald Trump himself pirated the device, right? France was outraged. Several others, Canada and several other countries were upset that passed through the United States. He took, right, took care of the masks and other things produced by China, right, for the rest of the world, right, to buy. And then comes the issue of the vaccine, right, which China was, then, a

30:32 country that is not a Liberal democracy. It is governed by a party. But to this day, it is the Chinese Communist Party. But also to say that China is communist is even laughable, right, because China is a business state and from the point of view From a real factual point of view, it's a country that acts like a big company, right? It dominates and manages to articulate with some of the world's major markets. It's creating, I don't know if you've heard of the Silk Road, right? Belt and

31:17 Road, isn't it? China is in every country in the world, right? It's doing business today, so it's in Africa especially, but it's also doing business with Europe, Latin America, Asia, Russia. During the Cold War, the United States' greatest enemy was Russia. After World War II, we had, from an international point of view, bilateral relations, right? Then, from the powers, the Soviet Union, and the United States, a socialist bloc, into a

32:03 liberal bloc, right? But the Soviet Union ended up doing the same nonsense that the United States is doing today. It invested a lot in wars and propaganda and in trying to bring countries to its side, right? And it ended up spending a lot of money, it ended up exhausting itself, and the bloc only came with him personally there in Afghanistan, right? At the time of Bin Laden, such as before, I didn't sleep there, inside the time of the invasion of the United States, when he became some American enemies at the time that He was an ally of the United States, then you have the fall of the

32:50 Soviet Union, right? Oh, and you have the United States, right? After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and from 1990 onwards, the great international power, the great power that dominates everyone, the great superpower, so it's the only time perhaps in history, right? After the time of the Roman Empire, you and in the same time of the Roman Empire, you had other empires, right? They tried, and the Mongols, right? You have Jegiscam. You have China, but the American government became the great unipolar world power, and

33:37 then what they did: everyone has to be like us? Everyone has to be like us. All the countries in the world have to be liberal democracies because the most perfect is the best, right? China doesn't have this concern. China doesn't want it to negotiate with another country, and the other country has a communist party too. You, you know, if in your country you manage yourself the way you want, our business is economy, right? So, it shows that it is doing business with the whole world, with the fry. And now, during the Trump government, especially there, that sea is called the sea. of China in the South and I saw the time, right, of a war,

34:28 a war, a kind of world war, because Trump there, his Secretary of State Pompey, super arrogant, and they tried to stay at China's door and intimidate China, right? So you have a trade war and it almost descends into an atomic war, right? Not a World War. And if that happens, everyone knows that the planet will not resist, right? Because China has atomic bombs, right? Less than the United States and everyone less than the Soviet Union. In China, even though it is considered communist, not now

35:14 during the government of Sergipe, but it became an ally after the United States and after the Second World War. Neve causes friction in the Chinese government of Maxi Tuning with the government, right, of the Soviet Union. So you have China allying itself with the United States in the account. Our today and the Trump government has managed to alienate its allies, including, right, many people will lie there to try to ease the situation because it is even the fear that they feared that happened. The Soviet Union allied itself, or rather, the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia, right? Russia

36:00 allied itself with the greatest armed power. of the planet and second in the United States, it allied itself with China and doesn't need, as I told you, to have so many atomic bombs. Like the United States and the Soviet Union, it's enough to have what's necessary to defend itself because when things start to break out, everyone, the planet goes dark, right? And China has a lot of atomic bombs to intimidate, also to avoid being invaded by the United States, and also the power. It's becoming the world's leading economy. It can help me a lot, but even more, you know, speeding this up a bit, right? As we saw the scenes, it became necessary

36:46 in all countries of the world to want to buy Chinese products, right? During the pandemic, it was necessary, but look, oh, that's why I'm raising this question, right? Because we were talking here about modern philosophy, about the importance of these authors, and I'll go back to them, right? Authors like Hobbes, in which to see the scope of international relations, anemia relations begin from the international point of view, where states, also as individuals in the state of nature, begin to follow their

37:32 interests, right? And then there can also be a war of all against all in the international scope. In the Bezzian view, there is no such possibility of a articulation at the international level. Why am I putting this to you? Because, from Kant onwards, the number of people who called it Perpetual Peace, he will speak of a confederation of world states. He uses the term Federation but in the modern sense of a Confederation in the sense of Honor to end wars once and for all. So, Kant is the first great philosopher to propose

38:17 this Confederation in the sense we have today in the sense of the UN, of an articulation to limit wars, to establish a type of international law capable of international relations, capable of at level 1, it is super national, as he speaks of a cosmopolitan law, right? And who is the great philosopher today who recovers and radicalizes this Kantian vision? Habermas, the Yoga Raven. Habermas will speak, right, of a federation of states. He will not speak at first, he will speak

39:04 of an articulation and a radicalization of the States in the sense of creating an international law and no longer with relations in the sense of interstate relations in the international sense, in the sense of a World State, right? No, I'm sorry, in the World State, I didn't rush, right? No, he I don't speak of a World State, nor do I sing, and even when I speak of a World State, we have a very great despotism. He will speak of several levels, right, of organization at a World level, right, um, and I don't know why I said that just now, right, of the state, not of it, right, the

39:50 World State. The one who speaks is the poor, right, but Kant already stated, right, that the idea of ​​the World State could be something very despotic, right, because it would be marginalized if necessary. I learned different cultures, right, so, but the tail, sisters, he will defend the idea of ​​a world government of several levels and more than one constitutionalization of international law, a constitution that would end up governing the national states and blocks of states, specific constitutions like the European Union and others, right, but see. And the modern authors, as I said, from the

40:37 point of view of the creation of the State itself, they will speak of an idea of ​​a contract, not some individuals lived in the state of nature and then they start to make a pact depending on the type of state of nature that they fictionalize that they postulate, you have a specific type of state, right. For example, in Hobbes, this State, an absolute state, is not a Leviathan state because individuals are Wolves of man, right, live in relationships of violence and inequality in the state of nature that speaks of a state and respects the rights that already exist in the liberal state, right, rights already exist by nature, and it is up to the state to respect

41:25 these rights. If not, the ruler can be deposed, then you have the sun talking about a democracy, right, Ana, distrusting the idea of ​​representation, right, politics, and for him, no one represents the undue. He will talk about him, he wants general, a will of everyone, right. And these concepts have been taken away, you still have today in the idea of democracy, right, you have singing. I spoke about singing specifically, Kant's idea, right, of international relations, important elements for the recovery, for example, in the contemporary era, it is by authors like Rabo Amasiou, but you have

42:12 reggae, right, King, who is a great philosopher, and who is in the period of transition between the contemporary modern period, right, which contemporary philosophy also, like Kant, recovers a lot, especially the Frankfurt School, which we will move on to work on, right, from the next class with you, okay guys? I'm closing and the recording here because if you have any questions, Denon and Kelly, don't you have any questions? I'll stop. The recording will be like this just as a kind of introduction to our subject today, right? And in the next class we will

42:58 start with the text that I left there in the WhatsApp group in the discussions about this text, okay? So?