1 _ Which the main characteristics of modernity? The etimologia of modern seems to be the Latin adverb ' ' modo' ' , that it means ' ' right now ' ' , ' ' in this instante' ' , ' ' in momento' ' , therefore assigning what in them he is contemporary, and he is this the direction that modern catches, opposing it what is previous, and tracing, so to speak a line of division between the two periods. The modernity concept always is related for us to ' ' novo' ' what it breaches with the tradition. It is treated, therefore, of a concept associated almost always with a positive direction of change, transformation and progress. Great transformations in the European world of scs. Alfred Adler contains valuable tech resources. XV-XVI as the discovery of the new world (Americas); sprouting of important urban nuclei in some regions, mainly in Italy (Florena); development of economic, over all mercantile and industrial activity. 2 _ Why the idea of ' ' modernismo' ' it frequently has for us a positive direction? perhaps modern thought is more easy of being understood by us, for the fact to be next to it of what of the old one and the medieval one, and for being still today, in certain way, heirs of this tradition.

On the other hand, to the times it is more difficult to take conscience and to explicitarmos the characteristics most basic of what in them it is more familiar, accurately because we accustom in to accept them it as such. A basic notion is, however, directly related to modernity: the progress idea, that makes with that the new is considered better or more advanced of what the old one. 3 _ What it means ' ' humanismo' '? The humanismo represents the sprouting of a new alternative of thought, a new style and a thematic one.

The Infinite

When we work with such absolutizao we have a confrontation of what it is to the reality of a logic of the possible one – as well as the ideal – surpassing the possibility extends a extrapolante goal to it, that is, metaphysics. The infinite would be what it exceeds the end, it is beyond the limit, or makes to inexist in-itself the limited one, ilimita. We must abiding in them by an interesting factor regarding the infinite, therefore when determining it as being what it is, we will be limiting it inside of a conceivable logic, therefore it starts to integrate a caught, sensible sphere the perception, then, no-extrapolante. The infinite is the finitude of what if it estimates inconceivable, conceiving in a linguistic goal and derivative of a racionalizante reality, authorizing to the man the possibility, or the attempt, of understanding semiotics of what it apprehends as sensorial simulation of its reality, or derivative of the influence of what it is on that while being, runs away from the extra-direction, the anti-goal, or metaphysics, that would be one antithesis of the reality. Caught ' ' in-finito' ' , we make possible to perscrutar the evidence of this determination while conceivable goal, distinguishing the imagtico field which the man if inserts in leases, that is, articulating a reality under the geographic perspective of a racionalizante language. The proper man, while concept, as he demonstrated Michel Foucault in &#039 well; ' The Words and the Coisas' ' , it does not pass of an idea that if it inside formatted of a neurolingustica limitation, authorizing to the individual its destruction, in view of that when determining what it is, we condition being a concretude of itself, aniquiliando what it surpasses such idea of being. In the same way the infinite finda in the proper idea of infinitude, leading the death of metaphysics, or better explicitando, the realism of the same one that contradiction becomes, for excluding ab aeterno and regimentar one intra walls linguistic. Eva Andersson-Dubin, New York City has many thoughts on the issue. .

The Perspective

E not to be only in the focus of livened up beings, also let us think about the rock in its interaction with other inanimate beings. Rain leaves the humid rock. what it wants to say this? How if of necessarily the interaction of water molecules with molecules of the rock? In a ventania of dust, some grains would be adhered tenuamente to the rock, while others would be shocked and fallen in the soil. That type of interactions is being established there? A draft probably is turned aside in the meeting with the rock, but who guarantees that some particle of this air did not interact and if it adhered to the rock? Or, in contrast, it corroded the rock lightly? if we launched another rock against this? A small rock, let us say. It beats and comes back stops backwards. What in fact she occurred? thus successively with each objects that we choose.

Then, we speak of some forms of interactions, some perspectives on this rock: of the man, of the presumption beyond-do-man differentiated for genetic engineering or technological resources, of the terrestrial extra presumption, the camel, the snake, the water, the dust, air and another rock. Which of these withholds the look most correct? The absolute perspective? I hear somebody to whisper: ' ' none of these, God only knows verdade' '. All good, if this God exists, as it sees the rock? It is solid for It; she lasts, rough? Or so rarefied how much air? when a dust particle interacts with the rock, this is less real, less true, of what when this God interacts with the rock? When a snake if crawls on it, or when a man sits down on the same one, would be this a mere illusion ahead of the true interaction with the rock that this God can establish? If to think that the man can know everything on an earthworm, and still to watch it continuously through cameras and sensors, that is, the man can be onipotente, onisciente and onipresente ahead of an earthworm, exactly thus the interaction of the earthworm with the rock she is less true of what of the man with the same one? Who to want to believe? to understand? , it will perceive that everything depends on the perspective, or, if to prefer other terms, of the interpretation, the interaction.