Paulo Jesus

Language is the main resource for meaningful action, including the very formation of selves and psychosocial identities, shaped by practical norms, beliefs, and values. Thus, language education constitutes one of the most powerful means for both social reproduction and social production and ideological maintenance and utopian innovation. In this paper, we attempt to emphasise the invaluable psychosocial, political, economic, and cultural function of language education in order to propose a critical view of the current transition from the monolingual to a multilingual paradigm. We maintain that multilingual approaches tend to serve the neoliberal framework and reproduce its systemic inequalities. Therefore, we argue in favour of emancipatory multilingual practices that could embody a translingual pedagogy capable of promoting the development of capabilities, the recognition of otherness, and the cultivation of diversity. Rooted in critical theory, namely in Foucault’s notion of subjectification and Freire’s view of conscientisation, an emancipatory translingual pedagogy would enable and empower every learner to synthesise a contextually creative field of new semantic and pragmatic relationships. Critical language education would enhance the ethos of biophilia that fosters what we term the poetics of communality and selfhood, that is to say, the proactive commitment to expanding symbolic and existential novelty.

A presente investigação questiona a essência teo-lógica dos futuros contingentes. Para o efeito, analisa-se, primeiramente, a argumentação segundo a qual, sob certas con­dições lógicas, teológicas, ontológicas e cosmológicas anti-necessitantes, detetadas por G. W. Leibniz (conciliando a posição de St. Agostinho com a de L. Molina e W. Ockham), a abertura contingente do futuro parece ser compatível com o regime das “verdades contingentes pré-determinadas”, regime enquadrado teologicamente pelo princípio do “futuro melhor” ou do “único futuro verdadeiro”. No entanto, os futuros contingentes incitam, com e contra Aristóteles, ao desenvolvimento de uma lógica temporal e plurivalente, ao modo de J. Łukasiewicz ou A. Prior. Esta lógica garante a abertura do futuro sem o oneroso custo metafísico da adesão a uma teo-lógica omni-determinante. A crítica do determinismo lógico, daí resultante, afigura-se mais coadunável com as condições pós-metafísicas ine­rentes à episteme agnóstica contemporânea, mas, nesse caso, a abertura do futuro impli­caria uma profunda redefinição das próprias ideias e funções de “Deus”, “matéria”, “história” e “verdade”.

RESUMO: A presente investigação questiona a essência teo-lógica dos futuros contingentes. Para o efeito, analisa-se, primeiramente, a argumentação segundo a qual, sob certas condições lógicas, teológicas, ontológicas e cosmológicas antinecessitantes, detetadas por G. W. Leibniz, a abertura contingente do futuro parece ser compatível com o regime das "verdades contingentes pré-determinadas", regime enquadrado teologicamente pelo princípio do "futuro melhor" ou do "único futuro verdadeiro". No entanto, os futuros contingentes incitam, com e contra Aristóteles, ao desenvolvimento de uma lógica temporal e plurivalente, ao modo de J. Łukasiewicz ou A. Prior. Essa lógica garante a abertura do futuro sem o oneroso custo metafísico da adesão a uma teo-lógica omnideterminante. A crítica do determinismo lógico, daí resultante, afigura-se mais coadunável com as condições pós-metafísicas inerentes à episteme agnósticacontemporânea, mas, nesse caso, a abertura do futuro implicaria uma profunda redefinição das próprias ideias e funções de "Deus", "matéria", "história" e "verdade". ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the theological essence of contingent futures. First, it analyses the argument according to which, under certain logical, theological, ontological, and cosmological conditions detected by Leibniz, the contingent openness of the future may be compatible with the regime of "pre- determined contingent truths", theologically grounded in the principle of an "optimal future" or a "single true future". However, the examination of contingent futures has also fostered, both for and against Aristotle's position, the development of a many-valued and temporal logic as proposed by J. Łukasiewicz or A. Prior. This logic safeguards the openness of future without the metaphysically expensive cost of adhering to an all-determining theo-logic. It hence follows that the critique of logical determinism seems to be more appropriate to express the post-metaphysical conditions of our present agnostic mentality. In this case, however, the openness of the future would entail a profound redefinition of the very ideas and functions of "God", "matter", "history", and "truth".

Razões e causas tipificam duas gramáticas ou jogos de linguagem que tendem para a incomensurabilidade. Estas gramáticas instituem uma discriminação qualitativa entre a auto-eficácia de se ser alguém e a eficácia simétrica, impessoal, de se ser algo. As razões podem comportar-se como causas, embora seja profundamente absurdo interpretar razões como causas e vice-versa. Contudo, para que as razões possam assumir tal eficiência causal, é necessário admitir vários postulados: primeiro, uma ontologia monista assegurando a comunicação de eficiência dinâmica entre duas cadeias de fenómenos, ou seja, a série de representações intencionais e a série de movimentos corporais, que implicaría a coexistência entre uma homogeneidade ontológica profunda e uma aparente heterogeneidade superficial; segundo, uma fenomenologia auto-vigilante, capaz de reconhecer a peculiaridade do "Eu sinto" que deve poder acompanhar o "meu agir" e o "meu fazer acontecer", ainda que aceitando a validade de uma incerteza metafísica invencível. A exploração das relacões entre razões e causas ilustrará o modo como a subjectividade emerge sob o signo de um processo unificador - mas instável - de construção de sentido. Reasons and causes typify two language games or grammars tending to incommensurability. These grammars institute a qualitative discrimination between the self-efficacy of being someone and the symmetric, selfless, efficacy of being something. Reasons can behave as causes, although it is fully absurd to interpret reasons as causes and vice-versa. Yet, in order for reasons to possess causal efficacy, one must assume: first, a monist ontology warranting the communication of dynamic efficiency between two chains of phenomena, that is to say, the chain of intentional representations and that of body movements so that a deep ontological homogeneity may coexist with a surface heterogeneity; second, a self-alert phenomenology which recognizes the peculiar "I feel" that must be able to accompany "my acting" and "my making happen", while acknowledging, however, the validity of an invincible metaphysical uncertainty. On exploring the relationships between reasons and causes selfhood emerges here as an unstable but unifying process of meaning-construction.

La fusion entre la logique et la dynamique déclenche chez G. W. Leibniz une réforme de la notion de substance qui altère profondément le rapport entre le Je et le temps. Prototype de la substantialité, miroir de Dieu et expression du Tout créé, le Je dirait beaucoup, notamment Être, Un, Même: la persistance d’un « sujet » logique, d’un « je ne sais quoi » de métaphysique et d’un « personnage » moral. Sous l’angle de la temporalité, le Je véhicule tous les temps possibles et réels, passés et futurs. Il est question donc d’une communauté poly- et pan-chronique qui propose une sorte de synchronie de la diversité temporelle dans la notion complète et dans la force primitive qui semblent ainsi s’incliner vers ou se déplier de l’Eternel.

Le pari de cet ouvrage est d'explorer les facettes multiples à travers lesquelles se donne le soi. Parler de soi plutôt que de moi implique une rupture franche avec les philosophies qui placent le sujet humain en position fondatrice. Le soi est encore moins une « chose » mais un mode d'être ; le soi n'est pas une donnée mais une conquête dont le devenir est en partie indéterminé. C'est donc sous le signe des épreuves qu'il faut penser les variations phénoménologiques et herméneutiques sur le soi. Si la philosophie reste la discipline dominante des réflexions qui parcourent les contributions du volume, l'originalité de cet ouvrage est d'offrir en même temps au lecteur d'autres variations par lesquelles se décline le soi.

Cet ouvrage propose une réinterprétation originale du rôle cognitif du Je pense kantien qui se veut pertinente pour la phénoménologie et pour la philosophie actuelle de l’esprit. L’étude du rapport entre temporalité phénoménale et cognition catégoriale constitue le fil conducteur de cette recherche. Elle mène à la question capitale du statut ultime du Moi, du sens du Je du Je pense. Que désigne-t-il : un épiphénomène contingent, une représentation sui generis, une métareprésentation, un acte indéconstructible, un événement fonctionnel, une forme logique ? Recèle-t-il une véritable unité ou plutôt une multiplicité productrice d’unité ? Représente-t-il une identité réelle ou un changement identifiable, un référent vide ou ‘saturé’ ? La réponse à toutes ces questions dépend notamment de la façon de concevoir l’efficacité du Je, c’est-à-dire de l’articulation entre inconscient cognitif, conscience de soi et conscience de quelque chose en général. En pensant Kant avec la philosophie moderne et contemporaine, l’auteur tente d’élucider l’instabilité inévitable du passage critique à un Cogito postmétaphysique.

Le verdict du tribunal de la raison, institué par la critique kantienne, commande la fin de la métaphysique qui se muerait en croyance rationnelle, absolument nécessaire dans le cadre de la raison pratique et de ses exigences d’intelligibilité. Cependant, l’assimilation existentielle de l’impossibilité de la métaphysique par Kleist déclenche non seulement le sentiment de finitude et d’humilité de la raison, mais aussi le refus tragique, désespéré, d’une science strictement phénoménale et d’une solution croyante pour apaiser son besoin de vérité absolue. Ainsi, une catastrophe, comme le tremblement de terre de Lisbonne ou du Chili, convoque des significations contrastées : Kant s’attache à la mécanique naturelle et à la possibilité d’un dessein inscrutable, tandis que Kleist éprouve la vie sous le signe du hasard, « voyage sans but », dont le mouvement offre le dynamisme diasporique du salut impossible.

Le rapport à l’altérité en général et à autrui en particulier condense un noyau de possibilités multiples qui, selon l’hypothèse esquissée, s’exprime et s’interprète dans le mode de penser et de vivre le Désir d’avenir. Oscillant entre hétérophagie et hétérophilie, ce type fondamental d’érotisme temporel s’incarne dans des configurations phénoménologiques dont la typologie idéale fait covarier une décision métaphysique (repérable au sein du spectre qui va de l’idéalisme constructiviste au réalisme affectif) avec une attitude éthique (située entre le scepticisme individualiste et l’hétérodicée absolue). L’analyse des contrastes qui définissent les positions onto-éthiques de Sartre, Merleau-Ponty et Levinas devient une méthode heuristique pour mettre en évidence la topologie de l’incommensurable et de l’optatif. The relation to alterity in general and to others in particular encapsulates a logical space of multiple possibilities which, according to the author’s hypothesis, may be expressed and interpreted in the manner of thinking and living the Desire of future. Oscillating between heterophagia and heterophilia, this fundamental type of temporal eroticism embodies various phenomenological configurations whose ideal typology reveals a deep correlation between a metaphysical decision (oriented towards either constructivist idealism or affective realism) with an ethical attitude (ranging from individualistic scepticism to absolute heterodicy). The analysis of mutual contrasts defining Sartre’s, Merleau-Ponty’s and Levinas’ onto-ethic stances is adopted as a methodological device in order to elucidate a broad topology of incommensurabilia and desiderata.

This article proposes a reading of the Kantian transcendental apperception that attempts both to reinforce the cognitive efficacy of its spontaneity and to determine the modus operandi of its unifying function . Thus, being irreducible to a pure logical form , the I think is meant to constitute the qualitative unity of all possible representational system, insofar as it performs an infinite process of semantic or narrative unification. From this standpoint, the I think denotes the key operation that produces meaning, and thereby the very possibility of truth. It follows, from such a framework of a procedural and constructivist theory of truth, the absolute primacy of the establishment of a semantic community by and under the Self. This community lays the foundation of coherence or organic cohesion of contents, and coherence provides the ground where correspondence emerges, which, in the last analysis, expresses nothing but the ever unfinished agreement of donation and action, agreement of Self with Itself