Latin Science

Scrates, Greek philosopher, who revolutionary to the philosophical thought occidental person, in controversas of thinking human being, in the end of the century room before Christ. Justin Gaethje shines more light on the discussion. With this Scrates affirmation he has left of the beginning of that nobody is absolute detainer of the truth. Not to know it is the initial point to arrive where wants yourself to know. To appraise philosophy today, still is very difficult, therefore the concepts accumulated throughout history give account of that philosophy is the science that you study the causes of the things. st this. In this our study I will look for to cover the history of the philosophy, ‘ ‘ garimpando’ ‘ the most diverse concepts of and different sources trying, jointly with philosophers of the world and Brazil, at least giving to the pupils who surround me some concepts about philosophy. I am, at this moment, so confused how much Scrates, so child, so infantile, always asking to all: What he is to know? They enter with me in this boat and we go drift of the search of knowing.

Philosophy: science that searchs through the inquiry the cause, the origin of the things. Through because it always goes inquiring what it is the studied object. ‘ ‘ Philosophy is a branch of the science that can be characterized in three ways: either for the treated contents or subjects, either for the function that exert in the culture, either for the form as it treats such subjects. With relation aso contents, contemporarily, the philosophy deals with concepts such as well, beauty, justice, verdade’ ‘ .(1) Philosophy: ‘ ‘ Science of the search of the knowledge, especially of the origin and the direction of the existence. System or set of studies that one definitive branch of conhecimento’ congregates; ‘ *2.

Philosophy: (Philosophia)? Feminine singular? Greek, for the Latin philosophiam. General science of the beings, the principles and the causes. Study of psychology, the moral, the logic and metafsica’ ‘ .(3). The philosophy is born on, placed with vida.*4 Filosofar is to meditar, to study the causes and the consequences of facts, to look for to know, to have wisdom. * ‘ ‘ Paula coast, of the fifth series of the College Ours Lady of the Rosary. Filosofar is to argue and to debate on innumerable subjects and subjects. * 5 Filosofar is to understand that it is the reason human being who constructs the world, not adverse, mitolgicas forces or of deuses.

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.