This text was automatically translated by Google Translate. If you notice any mistakes, please register in the comments of this publication. Thanks.
Fraternal greetings.
From time to time we notice with greater clarity that the popular worldview, or what might be called common sense, is fragile, symbolically confusing, logically inconsistent, aesthetically uncomfortable, politically violent, ethically problematic and empirically conflict-provoking. Perhaps we are in one of these times of exacerbated sharpness.
On the streets we notice alienation, where each person protects himself in a micro-universe, the universe of individuality. The diagnosis of nihilism is not so recent, but even so, we have not managed to make this issue a priority for popular reflection. Individualization and the consequences arising from it cannot think of themselves even in moments of deep crisis. Still, it is necessary to consider that this system of thought that values an individualization reproduces itself in the form of mass culture, that is, perhaps we can call it supposed individualization.
In social networks, we notice another manifestation of the protection of microuniverses, bubbles of protection of a supposed individuality, which may not be humanly understood, but which is undoubtedly the basis for algorithms to work in this space. Such individualization, again, does not understand itself or the consequences derived from it.
So what to do?
It would be too audacious to propose an answer, if one exists. But, without a doubt, there are paths to be followed by our intellects.
Very widespread in common sense, opinion has in many instances become the metric for choice. More than once the sphere of discussion and debate has become a disjointed exposition of personal and momentarily valid comments. In this mode of operation, we create a culture of individualized narratives, of opinions that try to consolidate through social authority, or relativity as a justification for our insufficiency of intellectual capacity.
Personal opinions are important, but they should be limited to their place and you should be aware of their severe limitations.
I like to exemplify the place of opinion with a phenomenon well known here in Brazil. The National High School Exam (ENEM) takes place every year and thousands of people from all states carry out an assessment to measure the level of basic education they had and access, according to their conditions, higher education. In the exam there are questions of a traditional/scientific nature where skills of the different areas that make up human knowledge are objectively tested. And, also, there is a part of the evaluation where the ability to organize arguments in a dissertational way is verified, the popular opinion article.
In this stage of the dissertation of the National High School Exam, the topic is confidential until the moment of the test. Over time, we understand the criteria for evaluating the writing and we understand that those responsible for choosing the topic do so in order to honor some relevant topic of today. However, until the moment of the test, there is no certainty about the topic that will be the subject of the essay.
The good student, or the good student, throughout their preparation for the Exam, works a little on each topic that is currently relevant, but does not have the time to delve into any topic of current reality, because this would make them stop studying other things. , after all, we have limited time. On the day of writing the essay, the student, or the student, knows the topic that will be the object of his argument, has contact with references proposed in the evaluation itself and structures his essay with these resources. Therefore, I ask you: does a newsroom that has gone through this process have the same quality as a newsroom that has undergone scientific, philosophical, artistic methodology, or any other traditional way of consolidating traditional human knowledge?
Even without having studied in this text how the scientific, philosophical, artistic methodology or any other traditional form of human knowledge works, our intuition already recognizes that the conditions of opinion are much more limited than the forms of knowledge that have other times, resources and that are legitimized in the form of a tradition – that is, it is collectively validated due to the criteria understood by those who carry out such a tradition.
In short, opinions do have a role in our structure of thought, the question that seems pertinent after the proposed exposition is: opinions, fruits of individualities, can be considered expressions of truth to what extent? Knowing that traditional knowledge has more resources, time and legitimacy, why do people talk so much from a personal point of view and little about traditionally constructed knowledge?
As you, dear reader, can understand, these issues are complex, so it is perhaps very pertinent that we are all able to problematize our opinions. Are you capable of this?
Although this text is quite introductory and an opinion, I believe that it has fulfilled its function of proposing a reflection on the place of opinion and individuality in the way of knowing the world. At other times we will be able to delve deeper into these questions and seek more precise answers about what we are trying to understand. Wouldn't this need for future time and resources to delve into the issue further prove the limitations of opinion?
See you soon! Thanks for following me this far.
If you liked it, how about helping to share? If you have found errors or would like to make some criticism, how about commenting below?
Yours sincerely.
Prof. Ricardo de Jesus Lopes
