Skip navigation


Supposedly, one of the key ideas of modern/enlightenment thinking is the belief in that the human being has the power to create it’s own destiny. Hubris, they say! Ultimate hubris that lead to ultimate doom, e.g. the Atom Bomb. Oh, and also that Reason is the means to such freedom.

But i would say that in a way this whole shebang is not very different from the post-modernist attitude of making your own meaning as you go along. Or from the Christian faith that god is expressed in human form. To me it all means: Maybe i’m wrong, but i’ll just try to have things my way if i can.

Deep down, in our bowels, that’s what we are. This pull. Not perfect, but good enough. Good enough can be spelled hubris, but it is still the same thing.

It’s easy to think that, once you begin thinking about open relationships and gender issues and these kinds of stuff, that you become different from the “vast majority”. So for example, if i don’t want to, as usually said in Brazil, “marry on church”, meaning a traditional form of marriage, then i am the exception and not the rule.

The problem is: This is just not so. Everyone loves in a post-modern way. Read More »

In more than one way, Greeks invented thought. Greek ways to talk and discuss and think are in the roots of our contemporary mindset.

Problem is: Greece developed this doctrine of thought amidst a process of disciplining thought. Not only enhancing it, but structuring it and making it conform to rules and criteria.

And most of the anti-rationality rage (anti-Cartesian, post-modern, all that) in fact rebel against this doctrine and misses the thought that underlies it.

But there is a lot more to thinking than applying Greek doctrine! Read More »

[pre-edit: i’ll be updating this post as soon as i go back home (or in a few weeks ;-) with links and references, but the gist of the argument should be clear.]

It is tragic how economy always begins with a brilliant display of how its issues are more complex than they appear, not only saying money isn’t everything but showing exactly how not, just to, few paragraphs in, grossly simplify everything into money. One of those mistakes is the so-called “Tragedy of the Commons”, whereby economists seem to prove that private property is needed for society to work. The detail always lacking is that this tragedy only happens when you mix private with non-private: The commons by themselves do just fine. Read More »