Do not you think that philosophy should be a fundamental element of education before going to university? Philosophy is needed and is there an ideal age to learn philosophy? 
Yes, I think the philosophy relates mainly to a young age, I think that children and adolescents in their early teens are all metaphysical spontaneously. Children ask metaphysical questions constantly, and major concerns are in these stages of childhood and adolescence. It's funny, remember the Gorgias of Plato: Callicles, Socrates accuses him when he was a grown man to engage in such childish philosophy. The philosophy says Callicles, is fine when you are little, when you're young, when a child is either devoted to these things of what is justice, goodness, why we die, then as an adult, is dedicated to serious things, and this helpful and leave him, you're a character because you're talking corruptor of philosophy when it should not be doing. Mean that philosophy is truly tied to training. The philosophy has some youth itself, and should be taught or professed in early ages. What an early age?, And that I would not clarify this. There is a whole school of philosophy for children speaks and writes and prepares texts of philosophy closely linked, not with complex philosophical expressions, but logical games. You can start to talk about philosophy, in a sense philosophical quite literally, in about 14 years ago. Yes, I think that 14 or 15 years is an age and you can start real dialogue and philosophical conversations. I have to deliver in December a book, an introduction to philosophy, not a 'philosophy for Amador "because Amador and is 24 years old and I'm hoping that was a book, and I will not write more to it, I'm trying to make a book to introduce them in the academic field as a people and adults who have not had the opportunity to learn philosophy, and can, in response to that question I usually do one of: where do I start?, before move on to greater things, start there. I'm thinking the book as a reader of 16 or 17 years. Frankly I have not dared, or have not been able to do so to a reader at around 14, could be done for even younger readers, it seems possible, but I have not managed to do.
Can you give us a relationship between anarchy, ethics and democracy? Who supports whom, truth to ethics, or ethics to the truth? For you, what is truth? How I can transcend ethics as academic discourse and teaching young people the utopia of the exercise of the will?
In a prologue, Borges said that one day men will deserve to have no government. Perhaps the fault of the anarchists is that they believe the time has come. I still find good anarchist project, I think the ideal would be to have government really be able to govern ourselves, to put the autopilot on social issues and the government of the people did each one in itself. Unfortunately the country without a state, no government really look more like Lebanon, Bosnia, places that seem desirable. Guardo
libertarian background, but now more screening for the need for democratic governance and ethics, that you are looking for fulfillment and better performance human. Ethics rope has to want to live in a democracy the best possible, pure and simple selfishness, ethics is the picture of self and not something otherwise.
As for the idea of \u200b\u200btruth and ethics, it is a rational task. For starters, like all philosophical task is a task above all rational, and the truth is that which tries to establish the reason, not an absolute truth with a capital letter, but one that is more real. Really understand the reality. The truth is to establish a greater share of reality. Transcending
ethics as theoretical and turn it into practice is essential. Teachers of ethics only thing do is to facilitate access to works, themes, forms of dispute. Although teachers did not exist ethics, it would remain, and the need for ethical standards and to reflect on what is best for living would remain. The question of ethics is how to live. So academic ethics will be more or less locked in professorial academic circles, but lived ethics, the answer to how to live, that question makes even those who do not have the slightest idea what the word ethics.
Do you think ethics has been the government's response to Blair about the dictator Pinochet? Is it ethical to be a young Marxist? What is your opinion of the management of ethics in international relations between countries? Why do you wear color?
The latter is very difficult, I will keep to think it.
The Blair government's response seems to me unethical, but legally absurd, obviously because it is also politically influenced. The idea that heads of state can not commit crimes against humanity, when most of the crimes against humanity, we, the Heads of State committed. Who is going to commit? Ordinary people can kill your mother flat, but it is very difficult to remove 500 thousand people at once. Are the heads of state who have that capability. So the idea that heads of state are excused from an offense that only they can make logical nonsense is truly absurd. By that standard, after the Second World War, Hitler might have taken refuge in London, because the criteria of the British judges would have acquitted.
Obviously I can a young Marxist, even an old Marxist, to be perfectly ethical. Ethics repeat, not a preset code, is a concern to make sense of her own freedom, and Marxism is a doctrine of political interpretation and economic reality that is perfectly compatible with the ethics and what you want. So the young and old and middle-Marxist or other doctrines, may have an ethical concern.
I do not agree with the question of ethics in international relations. I know it also speaks of a certain ethics of international relations, but I think it can only be ethical people, they can not be collective, countries, or anything more than people. All ethics are cars, all ethical concern freedom examined from within, and each person can look from inside his freedom. There is no examined from within that freedom of the individual. By extension the word ethics is handled more extensively, but I reserve the word ethics to reflect that everyone does on their freedom, and talk of legal issues, international politics, etc.., In relations between countries. Obviously, countries are, as you know, each other, in a state of nature where's the law of the strongest. If human beings within a country, we portásemos each other as they behave between states, we would live in full savagery. States are actually below the ethical status of people, almost all States are much more brutal, ruthless, selfish, bigoted, normal people. We live in communities that are worse than the individuals that form them.
thing about the glasses I will explain, it also has something to do not with Venezuela, but in Venice. Once, when in Venice, suddenly began to rain greatly, and know that Venice has the uncomfortable habit of occasionally flooded. Began to flood, I went with my wife and we took refuge in a store without thinking about what kind of store was, proved to be an optics. As the water off and we had finished a long time, caused me a little uncomfortable being there invading the store of that gentleman, I secretly to look as if looking glasses. It turned out that the owner of the optics was an Italian designer named Delilah Carraro, a highly original designer always colored glasses. I bought some glasses that were not them-and every year or an average year, when I pass by Venice, because I like to spend 2 or 3 days there at least a year and I'll always bought sunglasses, trying to be a little more outrageous than the previous year. You will understand that I enter an age and I can only give scandals glasses that I wear.
What is your opinion about cloning? What do you think about Ethics and AIDS? Do you agree with the legalization of drugs? What do you think about abortion?
The first question is about genetic manipulation. This and bioethics is one of the areas where we have people involved in professional ethics more overwhelmed we feel, because hundreds of publications arise constantly, and to have an opinion about scientific knowledge required minimum. If one speaks only what he read in a newspaper, has little to say. As I said before, truth is reality, and before we start talking about anything ethically, we must know what is being said. I acknowledge that my skills are very basic biogenetic, to put it mildly, so I would not settle any question on this subject with a minimum of clarity.
I think that cloning, which, if I understand correctly, means using a cell of a person to play another being that instead of receiving their genes from the usual double descent, receives only a single focus, one person . This and other similar manipulations, I think that actually pose an ethical problem, because there is a human right: the human right to double descent, all come from the union between maternal and paternal genes, all come from a passion between physical beings of the opposite sex. The dual affiliation is a right not only physiological, but symbolic of the people. There is no right to schedule orphans; people who are missing part of their parentage, because this is part of the constitution of subjectivity. In that sense it seems that science makes scientists and we all pay. Ethics need not have science, we, the people, human beings, citizens, we have to legislate and decide on what appropriate or not in the scientific field. Of course, not everything can be done. Since the discovery of the atomic bomb at least we have this idea: that while it is very easy fly around the world today, it would be good to do, and do not know what else, simply because they can do, they must be made mandatory. The
that ethics is a vaccine against AIDS, I'm afraid not. Ethics have therapeutic virtues, except for troubled souls. In this case I recommend condoms and other means that seem more appropriate.
I support the decriminalization of drugs, not legalization. You can only legalize, authorize or deny what is in the hands of authority, while the drugs are in the world. Is the same as if a mountain, because there were many climbers who die climbing it banned it, we could penalize access to the mountain, which is not to legalize or outlaw the mountain because the mountain is the authority of the jurist. Substances in nature are not the purview of lawyers. Drugs are in the world, in nature, the manufacture, we are in the century of chemistry, and what we can to penalize its use, arbitrarily, that is what happens today or decriminalization. If ever the wisdom to realize that from the time of banned drugs has not only increased its traffic deaths caused by them, their consumption, the seduction exercised by the negative and forbidden, on many young and others ... If ever the inventors of the ban, which was born in the United States, sponsored not by doctors or hygienists who care about the harm caused by drug-caused problems because only a few people-but that the ban came from the American right-wing societies, which were those that promoted the persecution of drugs, like alcohol prohibition in the day, say that if ever the United States and other countries, repeat aloud what they say in voice low when you talk to the specialists of these matters, would agree that this is nonsense and that what is needed is to inform, educate, prevent.
The issue of abortion: in this case it comes to decriminalize conduct. The abortion shall be and is a personal problem and, therefore, has to do with the moral dimension of the person who has to deal with it. I understand that one can accept, since it is a life that is just being made, but that is not yet a human life as such because it is reached later, there is a time when cutting this process is not a crime nor is it a crime, but simply save a penalty, and above all save the penalty for someone coming into the world unwanted, it will not be desired even by those who directly going to be romantically linked to him as their parents, etc.. I understand that there are others who believe that since the beginning of human life must be respected, promoted, etc. It is a moral issue to be discussed. Of course, expressions such as crime, holocaust, etc., Is pure superstition and clerical ideological fanfare. I think we should respect the moral side of this issue, but not turn it into a criminal matter, not to overwhelm the women, who typically are less economic opportunities, which have more family problems, sometimes have suffered abuse, rape, etc., and are the people on which rests the issue of abortion, from the underground, sometimes in prison, that is, at least not increase the pain, and you can not solve all.
How to integrate civics and ethics to the national education system? What role the media plays in shaping citizens?
not know the Venezuelan educational system, forgive me not involved talking about what I do not know, I guess in this field have shortcomings, because all education systems have them. While preparing the book value of education, I learned a little about the rules, even countries that had seemed mythically developed in the educational field as France, however, I found many deficiencies in this field.
I think, and I've tried say the words I have spoken before, that civic education is something that must be deliberately taught to young people, do not just let young people acquire impregnating the environment, because normally these impregnations are usually not positive. In schools, colleges, universities, and of course, also in the family and other fields should be strengthened patterns of civic and moral education, which means not establish or convert decalogues indoctrination classes, but to create spaces discussion of transmission of general principles. I'd settle for a young man or woman out of her high school training knowing how assessed under moral grounds, what form of reasoning that is in the moral, rather than having a specific Decalogue, having the ability to reason and to argue on moral grounds. That would, in my view, is desirable.
As for the media: it seems to me important to its function. Educate not only teachers, not only educate the parents. We educate all to one another, teach young children to play to smaller than they, in human society are all educated, no one who does not teach something to another, no one who does not teach or believe something to be another. Education is very general and in our era media, like politicians, have an educational role to play, although sometimes they have an educational function on the contrary, that is, people see and say, 'I do not know what I have to be ever in my life, not want to be like that man. " The media have an educational function that is sometimes very difficult, because newspapers, television stations, they are looking for financial gain, fun, etc., Which are also things lawful.
educational dimension must not be forgotten and never to remember that there truly is a certain ethical, some special obligations that we work in the media, because many people will have no further contact with certain kinds of cultural information, rather than that reached by the media, therefore, the media have an educational responsibility, no doubt.
What about the independence of the Basque Country? Was ethics Franco government to save the Republic?
course, the independence of countries is not a question of ethics but politics is a political as anyone else. Now, what is not ethical to kill people to get it. The dependence or independence or federation or any other political approach is conventional approaches, as are all policy approaches. Societies are not immutable facts given once and for all, mix, separate, come together. All this is part of the world of politics and interest that men have a better life. What I absolutely collides with ethics is to make a political pretext mechanisms of a sort of groups of serial killers who murder their neighbors.
Franco's question I do not understand, because he, as I recall, did not save the Republic, but precisely the opposite. I do not know what other virtues would be the Franco regime, the truth is a bit hard for me to remember, at least I missed when I lived under his regime, but, of course, the virtue of saving the Republic is not among them. Amador
Did you? What would your message so that everyone can enjoy life? How can we be ethically irreverent Youth? Amador
not come with me, I have seen you because is very big, bigger than me, he is seen from afar. He has not ever come to America, dreams of making a trip here. 2 or 3 years ago told me he wanted to travel down the Amazon, the Orinoco, which gave me a big scare in the heart. In short, as it turned out that did not make the trip, I guess that will come.
How can better enjoy life? Pardon me, but I'm not one counselor, I wish them well, but I could not tell them how.
Regarding the last question, ethics is an attitude that is always something irreverent. I mean, many ethical attitudes have been disrespectful, because they have broken routines. The values, when set normally, tend to sclerotic and tend to be covered with a mantle of hypocrisy, there is a set of values \u200b\u200bthat are instituted, they go by coating with a mantle of hypocrisy that makes the most important ways that content, which makes the appearance more important than substance. People ethical the great teachers of morality have been quite break with established life forms, characters have been uncomfortable, sometimes Atrabiliarios, which admitted no reverence for the establishment.
I do not think that ethics is mandatory not force one to be constantly saying impertinent, but is almost certain that if you are moral, sooner or later going to be irrelevant, at least that's the experience I had.
0 comments:
Post a Comment